Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROSS AND CROMARTY (STRATHCARRON SOUTH STROME ROAD) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Overseas Expenditure

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a detailed breakdown of the proposed £100 million reduction in Government overseas expenditure announced on 20th July; and if he is satisfied that this will be possible for 1967–68.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): The reductions involve consultations with other Governments and it would be prejudicial to disclose our proposals. On progress in securing the reductions I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 31st October.£[Vol. 735, c. 32.]

Mr. Stratton Mills: Surely the Chancellor ought to be able to give more details to the House. Does he recall that in July the Prime Minister said that the proposals for the reduction of £100 million had been carefully formulated? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman go a little further in defining the percentages between defence, aid and diplomatic services?

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to give the House as much information on this

matter as possible, but, as I have said, it involves negotiations with other Governments and where defence expenditure is involved we have to be very careful to ensure that relations with other Governments are not disturbed by premature disclosure of what is taking place.

Mr. Hooley: Approximately what amount of this £100 million is represented by cuts in aid to developing countries?

Mr. Callaghan: I could not say without notice. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would put down a Question.

Mrs. Thatcher: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give firm information to the House, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister said that the programmes then were quite firm and were to take effect next year?

Mr. Callaghan: The programmes are quite firm. I would hope to be able to give information, or my right hon. Friends will, when discussions with other Governments are completed, and I think that that is when——

Mrs. Thatcher: When?

Mr. Callaghan: That depends on the progress of the negotiations. I will certainly give the information as soon as possible. I can promise the hon. Lady that I am very much in earnest about this.

Dividend Distribution

Mr. Allason: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Treasury wrote in August and September to firms who had not increased their dividend distribution in terms accusing them of a breach of duty.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): As I have already told the hon. Member, no such accusations were intended and any contrary impression is regretted.

Mr. Allason: Surely the Treasury might have made some elementary inquiries before making these fairly serious reproaches against the firms concerned. I have in my hand a letter, with a long diatribe about the iniquity of increasing dividends, which is addressed to a firm which in fact reduced its dividends.

Mr. MacDermot: I, too, have a copy of a letter, but it does not bear any comparison with the description which the hon. Gentleman has given. I do not know whether we are talking about the same letter.

Rhodesia (Blocked Funds)

Mr. Wall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise the transference of blocked funds for the Rhodesia Freedom from Hunger Campaign, earmarked for African agricultural schemes.

Mr. Callaghan: Each case must be considered on its merits. Sterling payments are allowed for charitable and humanitarian purposes, and to relieve severe hardship, but not payments for long-term projects which could be deferred until constitutional Government is restored.

Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case mentioned in the Question concerns two sums of £10,000 for African agricultural development? Is he aware that similar allowances have been made for other schemes? Will he look into the matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I have personally reviewed this case, because it is difficult in this instance to draw the balance. The application was for dollars and, although that in itself would not be a determining factor, nevertheless it was one which weighed with me. I can say to the House, to show the basis on which we proceed, that grants have been made in response to urgent appeals for help to combat the situation arising from the drought in Matabeleland, and grants have been made to the asociations dealing with crippled children, the blind and the disabled. But there must come some division and I have tried to draw the line as fairly as possible.

Decimal Currency

Mr. Cant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the promised White Paper on decimal currency.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on his plans for converting to decimal currency.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope to publish a White Paper on 12th December.

Mr. Cant: Has my right hon. Friend read the great volume of support for the 10s. cent system coming from industry, commerce and finance? Is the White Paper likely to recommend this system and give us a system of coinage not so weighty as our present system?

Mr. Callaghan: I have read the evidence, but I have also read the Report of the Halsbury Committee, the majority of which came down in favour of the £system, and I hope that the White Paper will once again argue the case in favour of the £ system. As for the nature of the currency, perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until 12th December.

Mr. Lubbock: I welcome the Chancellor's announcement that the White Paper is due on 12th December. However, is he aware that the vast majority of expert opinion is against the £ cent system and in favour of the 10s. cent system?

Sir G. Nabarro: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take account of the fact that during this time coin-operated machines are continuing to be manufactured using existing coin sizes, which is a waste of resources?

Mr. Callaghan: Whether there has been a waste of resources will depend on what the size of the new coins is. There is a division of opinion about using the 10s. or £ system. I would have been astonished if there had been unanimity. The Government have reached a conclusion based on the majority Report of the Halsbury Committee and in due course we shall ask the House to uphold it.

Mr. John Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will hasten the introduction of decimal currency.

Mr. Callaghan: The most convenient date is February, 1971.

Mr. Smith: Could not the right hon. Gentleman speed this up a bit if only because it would help us in Europe? At this rate, inflation will decimalise the currency before he does.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it is important to give trade and industry and commerce as well as those manufacturing machines a reasonable time in which to change over. Australia took three years. New Zealand is taking four years. I think that the problems of neither of those countries were as complex as those of Great Britain in this regard. I think that 1971 is a sensible date. It gives another four years from now in which to get it done.

Mr. Lipton: Does this mean that we shall be loaded until 1971 with the inconvenience of halfpennies which have become quite useless from every point of view?

Mr. Callaghan: If my hon. Friend cares to make a collection on my behalf, I shall be glad to accept any halfpennies which he gets.

Wealth Distribution

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he give an estimate of the numbers of people in Great Britain whose net wealth was not over £3,000, not over £200,000, and over £200,000, respectively, for the years 1956, 1960, and 1964, respectively; and what steps he will take to accelerate wealth redistribution.

Mr. MacDermot: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As to the second part of the Question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget proposals.

Mr. Roberts: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the steps already taken in wealth distribution, but would not he agree with me that there is a considerable feeling on this side of the House that wealth redistribution plays a vital part in any successful prices and incomes policy? Is he aware that many of us expect to be proposed in the next Budget increases in the Capital Gains Tax and in other forms of taxation on vast accumulated wealth?

Mr. MacDermot: I cannot anticipate the Budget proposals, but when my hon. Friend sees the figures he will observe that they show that the number of people with assets worth more than £3,000 increased by 2½ million—that is to say, they

more than doubled—between 1956 and 1964.

Mr. Robert Cooke: If all the millionaires had all their money taken away and it was shared out among the whole population, how much would each of us get?

Mr. MacDermot: I should require notice of that question.

Following are the figures:

The estimates, which are subject to wide margins of error, are as follows:


NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN GREAT BRITAIN AGED 21 AND OVER WITH WEALTH


Thousands





Not exceeding £3,000
Not exceeding £200,000
Exceeding £200,000


1956
…
…
32,300
34,600
5


1960
…
…
31,900
35,000
7


1964
…
…
30,700
35,600
12

Motor Car Industry (Hire Purchase)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of further redundancies within the motor industry, he will now make the necessary adjustments in the hire-purchase regulations to reduce the minimum deposit from 40 per cent. to 20 per cent.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I believe the motor car industry understands that its major task for the immediate future is to complete the reorganisation that is taking place and to pursue sales in overseas countries.

Mr. Price: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that 40 per cent. of a very high-priced product like a motor car is of a completely different order from 40 per cent. of a lower-priced article costing, say, less than £100?
Since we have heard that car sales for September are 23 per cent. down on sales for September, 1965, would not he agree that now is the time to do something about it, since he himself admitted last month that the unit cost of a motor car was a very important factor in its price?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I would not think that this would be the moment to do anything about it. Since the month of September there has been the month of October and the month of November, and it will be very interesting to see how motor car sales have proceeded during


the last two months. I think it is quite possible that we shall find that there was a substantial deterioration in September and an improvement later.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the information supplied to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire, he will now seek to make special arrangements for bigger exporters affected by the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. MacDermot: My hon. Friend's information relates to a company which exports services and therefore does not qualify for premium.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is high time to make the Selective Employment Tax more selective on the penalty and premium sides? Would he further agree——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn to put supplementary questions concisely. We want a fair distribution of time as well as of wealth.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. and learned Friend further agree that this type of firm plays a vital part in our export drive and in our technical and scientific advance?

Mr. MacDermot: I have already paid tribute to the work of this firm in the export field. All aspects of this tax have been kept under review, but I think that this suggestion might raise international difficulties.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the previous question, would the hon. and learned Gentleman be careful not to give help to exporters who are already wealthy through exporting?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the results of his study so far of the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the employment of disabled persons; and whether he will now bring forward remedial measures.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the employment prospects of disabled persons since the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax; and what

measures he will take to assist disabled persons.

Mr. MacDermot: We are keeping a close watch on the effects of the Selective Employment Tax on the employment of disabled persons. As was anticipated there is little evidence so far of any adverse effects.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But is it not a fact that the general employment situation makes much more difficult the employment of disabled people? Is it not essential to be absolutely certain that no artificial handicap is put in their way?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not think that there is any handicap here. But the statistics of unemployment in those industries which do not get the premium or refund show that there has been proportionately less effect on the disabled than on those who are not handicapped.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that this was the very first matter which caused concern on both sides of the House when his right hon. Friend's proposals were brought forward? He has received deputations from the British Legion and other people who have expressed their anxiety about the effect of this tax on the disabled.

Mr. MacDermot: I personally have not received deputations. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this was a matter which was discussed at great length during our debates. All that I am pointing out is that the results bear out what we said in reply to the suggestions in those debates.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the total amount of selective employment tax which will be collected from retail Co-operative societies in a full year and of the total amount of premium and refunds likely to be paid to the tobacco and brewing industries in a full year.

Mr. MacDermot: Very broadly, about £11 million in a full year. I cannot at this stage make reliable estimates of premium and refund payments to particular industries.

Mr. Palmer: But is my hon. and learned Friend happy about the distortion of true social values brought about


as a result of the working out of the Selective Employment Tax? When he gets the figures and is amazed by them, will he think again?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring to the contrast which he draws in his Questions as being a distortion of true social values. Both tobacco and beer are already subject to a heavy Excise Duty. This tax was designed to bear on services, and the retail outlets for tobacco and beer, like those for other manufactured goods, are subject to the tax.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that about 80 per cent. of all the distribution turnover of the co-operative societies is in essential goods like food and fuel? Will he now —after all, he has had seven months to look at this—look at the way in which rebates are made and premiums given back, to restore what seems to many of us on this side a proper respect for proper priorities?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to keep this tax under review and this is being done.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he cannot yet make an estimate, can he at least say when the premiums in the Question will be paid?

Mr. MacDermot: The premiums will begin to be paid in January.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not this Government becoming the despair of the Co-operative movement? Is not this movement one which should not be attached to any political party and is it not a fact that many co-operators are turning to the Tory Party?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacDermot: I am very glad to see the new-found interest of the hon. Member and other hon. Members opposite in the Co-operative movement. I can assure him that the movement is not despairing of the Government.

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to introduce an additional element of selectivity into the Selective Employment Tax in order to assist the development areas.

Mr. MacDermot: We have the problem of the development areas very much in mind, but I cannot anticipate what changes may be made in this scheme.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that many of the development areas are facing a very serious situation indeed? In view of his right hon. Friend's Answer to an earlier Question—to the effect that consideration is being given to shielding these areas—will he give very serious consideration to the suggestion that S.E.T. should be used to differentiate between the development areas and the rest of the country?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend made it clear in the Finance Bill debates last summer that this is a matter which he would study, and that is being done.

Land Commission Bill (Levy)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the annual loss of revenue in respect of Income Tax, Surtax, Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and Stamp Duty, respectively, consequent upon the bringing into operation of the levy to be imposed under the Land Commission Bill.

Mr. MacDermot: I would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources on 13th June last. [Vol. 729, c. 1005.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As that Answer contained no information whatever, does it follow that the Government are imposing the elaborate apparatus for the collection of this levy without any evidence that they will collect any substantial amount of revenue net at all?

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir; we will collect a substantial amount. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman cannot be given the figure for which he has asked was explained in the previous Answer. The fact is that Capital Gains Tax applies only to gains as from 5th April, 1965. It follows, therefore, that any loss of tax due to elimination of the development value will have very little effect in the initial years.

Exchange Control Statutory Instruments)

Mr. John Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consolidate the Statutory Instruments relating to exchange control.

Mr. MacDermot: Separate Statutory Instruments are made for separate subjects and these are consolidated with their amendments from time to time.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Conservative Party, when it was in office, issued only nine of these Orders, but that now there are 49, and that this unco-ordinated mass of very complicated instructions hampers the earning of foreign exchange?

Mr. MacDermot: I am well aware that when the Conservative Party left office it left us a situation which required the issuing of a considerable number of additional Orders.

Australia (Private Portfolio Investment)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority he imposes restrictions on private portfolio investment in Australia by United Kingdom residents.

Mr. Callaghan: Under the voluntary programme announced in my Budget Speech, I asked institutions not to increase over a period their holdings of securities denominated in the currencies of Australia and the other developed sterling area countries. The Control of Borrowing Order, 1958, regulates some borrowing in this country by those residents outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Control of Borrowing Order simply applies to borrowers in Australia and has no legal force on investors here? Therefore, by what authority did the Bank of England write and tell investors that they were not to take up rights in various issues by Australian companies? Surely it had no authority whatsoever for making that suggestion.

Mr. Callaghan: The legal position is quite clear: there is authority for this. But I am aware that it is causing some difficulty. Now that it has been brought

to my attention, I am having the matter examined to see what easement can be made.

Industry (Investment)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with industry and what steps he now intends to take to stimulate investment.

Mr. Callaghan: The Government continue to be in close touch with representatives of industry through formal and informal channels. A statement about bank credit was made on 1st November advising industry that credit is available for export requirements and productive investment. As for the last part of the Question I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer on 25th October to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).—[Vol. 734, c. 815–17.]

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that investment will drop very seriously next year unless he takes action? Is he further aware that the running attacks on profits, dividends, and unearned income, which the Government have made have caused this situation, and that it is necessary for the Government completely to change their policy so that they once more encourage people to save and to invest?

Mr. Callaghan: That seems to be a preamble to a speech which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt hope to make tomorrow or the next day. I can only say that if he takes the total level of investment, private and public, I very much doubt whether there will be a decline next year. Public investment is of great importance in this regard, certainly in its economic aspects, but I am continuing to examine this matter, and I hope to have more to say about it in the course of the debate if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has the right hon. Gentleman perceived that the Prime Minister last night at Grosvenor House issued a series of exhortations to industry for further private investment? Will he point out to the Prime Minister that it is of little value for private investors to buy equities if they are to be sequestrated shortly afterwards by iron and steel


arrangements, or other nationalisation Statutes? Is not this an invitation to private investors to lose their money?

Mr. Callaghan: My reading of the situation recently has been that a great many investors seem to have been wanting to get out of equities into gilt-edged, so I doubt whether the steel stock will have any adverse effect on them.
As regards the general position, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister relied not only on exhortations. Yesterday the President of the Board of Trade issued detailed information about the way in which manufacturers can get cash grants, money in the pocket, 20 per cent. or 40 per cent. of their expenditure.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Hotel Staff, London (Trade Unions)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions that major London hotels which refuse to recognise trade unions for their staff shall not be used for Government functions.

Mr. MacDermot: Any such action in advance of the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers Associations would be premature.

Mr. Winnick: In the meantime, should not the Government express their strong disapproval of these major London hotels which, in this day and age, refuse to give their staff the elementary right of belonging to a trade union?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. We expect every employer to recognise trade unions in this day and age.

Mr. John Smith: Should not the hon. and learned Gentleman encourage the Government to reduce the number and cost of Government functions?

Mr. MacDermot: That is a separate question, and I would not accept it in the form in which the hon. Gentleman has put it.

Prices and Incomes Policy (Holiday Entitlements)

Mr. Allason: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when improvements in holiday entitlements, held up under the prices and incomes policy, may be implemented.

Mr. MacDermot: The only commitment of this kind held up by the standstill applied to a Post Office grade of three persons. It will be implemented on 1st January, 1967.

Mr. Allason: There is a firm in my constituency which has been forced to hold up an agreed holiday benefit scheme because of the Government's policy. The White Paper which has been introduced says that this will apply to holidays until 30th June next year. May we have some further guidance as to what sort of holidays can be had by people before and after 30th June next year?

Mr. MacDermot: Any general questions about the application of the prices and incomes policy in the private sector is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, but there are a number of cases of this type outstanding in the public sector and they, like the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will be subject to the criteria for the period of severe restraint.

European Economic Community

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the rise in the cost of living which would follow Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Callaghan: Apart from the effect of higher food prices, which would increase the cost of living, I do not find it possible at this stage to make a meaningful forecast of the effect on the Retail Price Index.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the conservative estimate of the rise in the cost of food, which is not the only effect of Britain going into the Common Market, will have a very serious effect on the standards of living of all the lower-paid people in this country, not least the 15 per cent. who are below the poverty line? Does my right hon. Friend intend to see that all wages


and salaries are raised to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living?

Mr. Callaghan: The effect on food prices is quite clear. Spread over a period, it will be equivalent to 2½ per cent. to 3½ per cent. My hon. Friend asked what would be the effect on the index. This will be affected under entry by the removal of duties on a wide range of non-agricultural goods. Over any transitional period, increased duties on these items for which the E.E.C. common external tariff is higher than that of the United Kingdom will relieve the Exchequer of the major part of the burden of supporting agriculture. I do not think that it is possible to give a reasonable forecast where we will end up at the end of the day in terms of an increase.

Sir H. Harrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture is making many speeches, reported in the Press, about the great increase in the cost of food? It might, therefore, be reassuring if he could get out a statement if there was a decrease in other articles.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that my answer will show that there are minuses as well as pluses in this forecast. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is making a great many speeches to the satisfaction of his audiences, and especially the farming community.

Bank of England Governor and Director (Speeches)

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a direction to the Bank of England, in the public interest, that no Governor, Deputy Governor or Director of the Bank shall make speeches on public policy until such speeches have been approved by him.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current practice in issuing instructions to top executives of the Bank of England to the effect that public speeches made by them should in the public interest secure his approval in advance.

Mr. Dickens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that statements on public policy made by the

Governor, Deputy Governor or Directors of the Bank of England are submitted to him for prior approval.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I have issued no instructions in this matter.

Mr. Foot: There may be excellent grounds for permitting these gentlemen to say what they think, but does not my right hon. Friend think that steps should be taken to impress on the Bank of England and on the Governors that they are not a completely irresponsible organisation, and does not my right hon. Friend think, in particular, that it would be a courtesy to the public if the Governors and Deputy Governors of the Bank of England, when they are talking about wages—such as in a recent speech from one of them—would tell us their wages, when they had their last increase, and whether it remotely conformed to the norm which applies to the rest of the community?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the speeches made by the Governor, Deputy Governor and Directors of the Bank are made responsibly. They are made because they think that they have advice to give, and it should be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered, or rejected if it is not thought to be appropriate.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House in the most categoric terms that he will never yield to pressure to gag or censor these gentlemen in view of the catastrophic effects which that would have on overseas confidence in sterling?

Mr. Callaghan: Whatever my inclination, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) I am not one of those who rush to censor speeches, I have the feeling that it would avail me very little if I were to try to censor the speeches of people like Sir Maurice Laing, Mr. Cecil King, Sir William Carron, Lord Robens, or Lord Nelson.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on these benches take strong exception to the archaic pre-Keynsian advice being given to the Government from higher quarters in the Bank of England? Is he further aware that these feelings are the more deeply held because we are becoming more rapidly


aware that the Bank of England is not publicly accountable to this House?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I am not aware of the opinion expressed in the last part of the question. As to the first part, I obtain a great deal of advice and help from the Bank of England, and much of it is very useful and very valuable.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Lord Cromer was Governor he used to make most welcome statements about prestigious public expenditure east of Suez, which might well have come from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)? Will he, therefore, be very careful before accepting any of the advice proffered to him on this subject from below the Gangway?

Mr. Callaghan: This only shows that I receive varying advice, much of it good, some of which I do not find acceptable.

Children (Family Allowances)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received for the abolition of child allowances permitted for Income and Surtax purposes and their replacement by more adequate family allowance benefits; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to abolishing child allowances for tax purposes and increasing family allowances.

Mr. Callaghan: I have not received direct representations on this matter, and I cannot add to what has been said on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security.

Mr. McNamara: Can my right hon. Friend then say what consideration he is giving to this problem in his Department?

Mr. Callaghan: As I think has been stated, an examination of this problem is going on in the Government at the moment.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Inland Revenue itself is not creating obstacles and objections to being used

for social purposes, as suggested in the Question?

Mr. Callaghan: I am responsible for the Inland Revenue and would therefore take full responsibility for any of its actions. It would, of course, be appropriate for it to advise me on the effects of changes of this sort on the taxable capacity of individual taxpayers.

Mrs. Thatcher: In the consideration of this matter which is going on, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that child allowances exist to ensure that the Revenue takes less from the man with family commitments than from the man with identical income and that any change in that situation would be bound to redound very badly on the family man?

Mr. Callaghan: The first part of the proposition is clearly true. As to the second, I suppose that it would depend on what compensation was given in the shape of family allowances

Mr. McNamara: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the abolition of Income and Surtax allowances for children, together with other welfare benefits such as school meals, and their replacement by a standard family allowance of 25s. for the first child and £1 each for other children in the family.

Mr. Callaghan: Assuming that parents bore the full cost of school meals and milk, this proposal would yield a substantial net saving to the Exchequer.

Mr. McNamara: In view of that fact, would my right hon. Friend consider introducing such a scheme in his next Budget?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that my hon. Friend will expect only the traditional reply to that over-optimistic questiton.

Mr. Iain Macleod: But could the right hon. Gentleman tell us—this is such an important matter, as regards both this Question and the last—whether his Answers mean that what is being studied is part of the Government's long-term plans, or is it linked in any way to what was said about lower-paid workers in the recent White Paper?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. It is related to long-term plans. It will obviously have an impact on any statements in the White Paper, but it does not spring directly from that.

Nationalised Industries (Manpower)

Sir E. Errington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Government's policy of reducing hoarding of labour and over-manning in industry, he will appoint a committee to examine and report on the manning of the nationalised industries.

Mr. MacDermot: The efficiency of the nationalised industries is a continuing object of Government policy, and we are considering whether any further measures are needed to stimulate increased productivity, including of course the efficient use of manpower by these industries.

Sir E. Errington: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman claim, then, that the nationalised industries are free from the faults of private industry, or is he just plainly complacent?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not think that there was anything complacent in my Answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study what I said.

Building Societies (Mortgage Interest Rates)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement of Government policy on mortgage interest rates chargeable by building societies.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take on the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report on the Building Societies.

Mr. Callaghan: I conveyed to the Building Societies Association on 14th November the Government's view that, in present circumstances, the 6¾ per cent. mortgage rate should be maintained, and I am proposing to them a study of the real requirements of reserves and liquidity.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: But is not that quite unrealistic advice to offer the build-

ing societies, in view of the high level of interest rates created by the Government? Would not the best contribution which the Chancellor can make in the present situation be to honour his election pledge and revive the mortgage option scheme, which seems to have gone into permanent deep freeze?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that the mortgage option scheme legislation will be appearing before very long. On the first part of his question, interest rates are, of course, not a purely domestic matter; they have international repercussions. I am not able to say at the moment in what way world interest rates will be moving, but there is a general expectation, I think, that, over the next few months, they are more likely in the world as a whole to turn downwards than to move upwards.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that owner-occupiers consider that there would be no justification for any increase in the mortgage interest rate? Would he not agree that the report shows that the reserves of the societies are large enough for no increase to be necessary for some considerable time?

Mr. Callaghan: The last part of that question refers to exactly what I should like to study with the building societies. This proposition was put to them many months ago. As a result of the discussion, I then referred it to the Prices and Incomes Board and so far, I think, the Board has accepted and reinforced my view that there is a real and serious subject for discussion here about what the proper level of reserves should be.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the Building Societies Association may be considering the matter further in the light of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, some members of the Association are disregarding his advice and that the Lambeth Building Society, for example, has increased its rates to 74¾ per cent.?

Mr. Callaghan: There has never been, especially among some building societies, agreement to maintain a fixed rate, but the recommended rate is what we are talking about here. It is that rate on which I have commented.

Capital Gains Tax

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he is unable to give a figure for the total losses for Capital Gains Tax.

Mr. MacDermot: Because these statistics are not collected.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Surely this is most curious. Will this information not be required by the Chancellor in formulating his forward Budget estimates? Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me that, having regard to the very heavy falls in the Stock Exchange, the agreed forward losses are likely to exceed many scores of times the very small amount collected by this miserable tax?

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. The information is not required. I thought that hon. Members opposite were anxious that we should restrain the growth in the Civil Service and not increase it by collecting statistics which we do not need.

Unemployment

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assurances he gave to the Trades Union Congress Economic Committee on 7th November about unemployment and the figure at which he will take special action; what plans he is now making on the action to be taken; and why this assurance was not given first to the House of Commons.

Mr. Callaghan: I had a useful exchange of views with the Trades Union Congress Economic Committee at their request, but as the meeting was private, and no official account of the proceedings was issued, the hon. Gentleman should regard with some scepticism some of the accounts that later appeared.

Sir C. Osborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the leader in The Times said that the T.U.C. leaders were disappointed with what he said to them? Can he now tell the House to what height unemployment will rise before he reflates? Second, how can he reflate without encouraging inflation again?

Mr. Callaghan: As regards The Times leader writer, I am not aware that he was present at the meeting of the T.U.C. Economic Committee and I do not know how he knows what was said there. As to the substance of the question, this is not the moment to reflate. The present moment and for some time to come is a period for encouraging productive investment and the diversion of the interests of firms into the export market. It is along these lines that the Government intend to pursue their policy.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unemployment figures have now already exceeded by 70,000 —the total is up to 560,000—the figure which his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister forecast as a high figure? Does he not agree, as do many on this side of the House, that the time is now ripe for reinflation as well as added reinvestment?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to take us back to the same situation that over-inflation got us into last summer. This would be the wrong moment at which to start to re-inflate consumer demand, and the Government have no intention of recommending that course to the House.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Whatever assurances may have been given the T.U.C. or anyone else, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he is aware that in Scotland it takes six times as long for a recovery programme to work through the economy compared with the rest of the country, and will he, therefore, consider having a recovery programme on a regional basis?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. The care of the development areas is a very important matter, especially in a period when we have taken heat out of the economy. A lot of the measures which have been taken—indeed, many of them taken by the previous Administration as well as by the present one—are having the effect of shielding the development areas more than they would otherwise have been shielded. I am not satisfied with the extent to which this has gone and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will certainly consider all possible ways of shielding these areas. Nevertheless, it


would be wrong to indulge in a general consumer reflation at this time.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, at the same time as making that categorical statement about reflation, whether it is not to some extent at variance with what he said earlier about investment? Is he limiting what he said to consumer reflation in the narrower sense, or is he speaking more generally?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that I was careful to use the phrase "consumer reflation" in this regard.

Mr. Michael Foot: Reverting to my right hon. Friend's original Answer, does he believe that those who are being made unemployed in Wales at the present time are moving into productive employment, and, if so, would he say in what numbers?

Mr. Callaghan: This is partly true. It is certainly true, for example, that in the coal mining industry of South Wales, there are now more recruits than there have been for a long time and that much of the wastage has fallen away. To that extent it is a net gain. There is also a substantial improvement in a number of essential services in South Wales, for example such services as the transport service. To that extent it must be regarded as a net gain, too. However, I say to my hon. Friend and the House that no one should be satisfied until this process is completed, that we are now going through an interim stage and that the last thing I would recommend is that we should return, by means of the old methods, to a situation from which we have just emerged.

Manufacturing Industry (Investment)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the prospects for manufacturing investment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made to date with his review of the implications of the forthcoming investment slump in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Callaghan: The forecasts of manufacturing investment are that it will be lower in 1967 than in 1966. I am keeping the situation under close review.

Mr. Barnett: If my right hon. Friend cannot bring forward the date for paying the investment cash grants, will he consider the possibility of issuing investment grant vouchers which could be discounted with banks, so utilising the money which the banks now have to the ends he desires?

Mr. Callaghan: This is one of the matters to which I have given consideration, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I do not think it would be possible to give this additional work to the new offices which are now being established. However, I hope to have more to say on the subject of investment, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, when we debate this topic later in the week.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the prolonged review on which he has been engaged will be finished? Would he not agree that it is not much encouragement to manufacturers to invest when their prices, dividends and markets are frozen by the Government? Will he do something about this?

Mr. Callaghan: Not in the short term. I believe that very many people, especially in private manufacturing, recognise with the Government—and, I hope, with the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman—that unless we are to avoid a constant collision when we have economic growth with capacity, it is vital that they should encourage any productive investment now, irrespective of the immediate return.

Diabetic Confectionery and Soft Drinks (Taxation)

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will end the taxation of diabetic confectionery and soft drinks.

Mr. MacDermot: This proposal has been considered sympathetically on a number of occasion, but I regret that it would create too many anomalies and trade distortions to be acceptable.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIALIST COMMITTEES

Ql. Mr Nigel Fisher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the inclusion of Commonwealth and Colonial affairs as one of the new specialist committees of the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave on 22nd November to a Question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)—[Vol. 736, c. 1148].

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when considering these matters, that there is a very considerable House of Commons, as opposed or in addition to public interest, in Commonwealth and Colonial affairs, and that because there is inevitably so little legislation concerning these matters, hon. Members have little opportunity of debating them on the Floor of the House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Certainly that will be borne in mind. However, I had better not anticipate the statement which I hope my right hon. Friend will be making in the near future when the House comes to debate these matters.

Mr. James Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this would be one of the safest committees on which to place independent-minded back benchers, particularly in view of the fact that no element of policy-making is involved from the point of view of drafting colonial constitutional matters?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on Government policy with regard to British membership of the European Economic Community.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement about the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the United Kingdom and Europe and in par-

ticular with regard to the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to my statement of 10th November and to the speeches by myself and by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on 16th and 17th November.—[Vol. 735, c. 1539; Vol. 736, c. 446; Vol. 736, c. 759.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: While my hon. Friends and I were grateful for the Prime Minister's conversion, will he not now go further forward to total immersion and accept that while the letter of the Treaty of Rome is certainly economic, the spirit of the Treaty is profoundly political?

The Prime Minister: My study of these theological matters in early youth suggest that there is a difference between being a Baptist and being a strict Baptist. So far as the distinction between the economic and political and defence content of the Treaty of Rome is concerned, I think that I dealt with that, and in greater detail I dealt with the misunderstanding about my reference to politics and defence. However, all hon. Members interpret differently their motivation for going into the European Economic Community.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Prime Minister give any indication at all of the progress he is making with the visits to be paid by himself and the Foreign Secretary to various countries in Europe, and in particular to the President of France?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a meeting of the E.F.T.A. Prime Ministers is to be held in London next Monday. Following that, we will have to work out the detailed programme for visits to the capitals of the countries of the Six.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Rhodesia.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the Rhodesian talks.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister what further proposals he intends to make in order to bring about a solution of the present constitutional position in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: I have no present plans to visit Rhodesia, but the House will wish to know that Sir Morrice James left last night for Salisbury to see the Governor and, under his auspices, to clarify certain issues which have arisen from my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary's report to the Government on his recent discussions in Salisbury.
As to the other points, I would ask hon. Members to await the early statement I have promised to the House.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be very grave misgivings on this side of the House if he or any other Minister again travels to Salisbury to be merely an accessory to Mr. Smith's prolonged and rather cunning procrastination? Will he give a categorical assurance that the timetable agreed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference will be strictly adhered to?

The Prime Minister: As for my hon. Friend's reference to procrastination, the timetable or programme was laid down in the communiqué following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, where it was understood and agreed that we would make one final effort to try to reach a settlement within the terms of the six principles and that, failing that, certain action would be taken. We are adhering to that programme so that, therefore, even if anyone wanted to procrastinate, it would not be possible—and I readily give this assurance to the House —because of the fact that we are adhering to what was agreed at the Conference.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be adequate time for hon. Members both to consider the documents before a debate and to debate the matter before there is any approach to the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: We will do our best in this matter. Certainly the discussion across the Floor of the House last Thursday was against a slightly different time-scale from what was then envisaged. It is very difficult to give categorical

assurances here, but certainly it would be my intention that no irrevocable commitment would have been made in this matter until the House had had a chance to debate the matter. This is what I very much hope we shall be able to achieve, but I would not want to give the assurance that there would not be the beginning of the activation of the machinery envisaged under the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that great numbers of people in this country believe that this is a matter which should be settled between Rhodesia and ourselves and that they are firmly opposed to it going to the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: Of course, we have throughout said that this is a matter which we want to keep within our own control and to settle between Rhodesia and ourselves, but of course a situation arises if after prolonged discussion there is not an acceptance in Rhodesia of the only conditions which this House could possibly tolerate for its settlement—all parties in this House. So far as recourse to the United Nations is concerned. I think there has been some misunderstanding, inevitable perhaps, between a decision to hand over legal sovereignty of Rhodesia to the United Nations—which is not in contemplation—or to say that we cannot solve the problem, let the United Nations decide it—which again is not in contemplation—as compared with the action envisaged in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué where, in order to make sanctions work as we are working them and some countries are not, it is desirable to have common United Nations action to make those sanctions effective.

Mr. Kelley: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a possibility of approaching people in Rhodesia of alternative political ideals to those of the present régime to try to obtain a settlement by virtue of that approach?

The Prime Minister: When my right hon. Friend was in Salisbury early in October he had the opportunity of discussing with representatives of very wide-ranging political opinions in Rhodesia this possibility. He was not able to see Mr. Nkomo or Mr. Sithole but he spoke to a number of like-minded people.


I do not think those soundings suggested that there is any immediate settlement possible on the basis suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley).

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that he will have the support, certainly of everyone on this side of the House and I believe in the greater part of the House, so long as he continues efforts to reach agreement by negotiations, but that we shall certainly try to dissuade him from interfering with those efforts by any idea of a particular time or dateline?

The Prime Minister: In the first place, in depends on what the right hon. Gentleman means by negotiations. We have been over that argument before. So far as timing is concerned, in so far as there has been—and there has been—a small movement in the last few days I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not underrate the importance of having fixed a programme and a timetable in getting that degree of movement. We would require a good deal more movement yet before we saw the possibility of the kind of agreement envisaged in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué. I am not sure that it was helpful to this when the right hon. Gentleman at the end of the Conference condemned the timetable and used words which may have been taken by some people in Rhodesia as an invitation to reject the propositions of the Conference.

Mr. Heath: There was certainly no invitation to anybody to reject the idea of a negotiated settlement, but is the Prime Minister aware that even those opposed to Mr. Smith, like Sir Roy Welensky, who was on television last night, say that any question of insistence on an ultimatum, programme, or dateline would certainly not produce an agreement? What we want the Prime Minister to do is to continue to work for a negotiated settlement.

The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that if there had been a timetable related to the end of December instead of the end of November, we would have got the movement we got last weekend round about Christmas-time. The right hon. Gentleman with his long experience

of negotiations should not under-rate the importance sometimes of helping to concentrate the mind of a person with whom one is negotiating. This I believe we have done. We have yet to see whether it will reap the results which I am sure so many of us in this House are hoping for.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Prime Minister think that it would assist the negotiations if the Leader of the Opposition would state without any equivocation whatever that his party stands absolutely by the six principles?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman does stand by the six principles. He has stated this on a number of occasions, not on behalf of the whole of his party—he cannot—but certainly on behalf of the official leadership of the Opposition. What would help, I think, would be if he would continue to make clear that he would not envisage a settlement which did not fail to provide effective guarantees for the operation of these six principles and for a return to constitutional rule.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL. REPORT a list of Ministers responsible for Departmental matters affecting Northern Ireland, itemising the area of their responsibilities.

The Prime Minister: The preparation of an exhaustive Answer to my hon. Friend's Question would be both time consuming and expensive, but I will circulate a summary in the OFFICIAL REPORT which I hope my hon. Friend will find useful. Should he want further information on any specific point I will, of course, do my best to supply it.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Ministers itemised in that list to answer Questions in this House and not to dodge them?

The Prime Minister: I have never heard any suggestion of any of my right. hon. Friends ever dodging a question—

Sir G. Nabarro: Do not exclude yourself.

The Prime Minister: —apart, of course, from some of the time-honoured formulae such as not anticipating the Budget Statement, but if my hon. Friend has in mind any particular statement of Departmental responsibility for which Ministers answer in this House for Northern Ireland legislation, perhaps he will let me know.

Following is the information:

The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, transferred general powers of government to the Northern Ireland Parliament, but reserved certain matters to the Parliament at Westminster and excepted other matters from the powers of the Northern Ireland authorities. In relation to all these reserved and excepted matters the relevant United Kingdom Minister has responsibility to Northern Ireland as in Great Britain. The most important of these matters are matters relating to the Crown, the making of peace and war, the armed services, foreign and Commonwealth relations, elections to the United Kingdom Parliament, dignities and titles, treason, aliens, naturalisation, trade with places outside Northern Ireland, merchant shipping, wireless telegraphy, aerial navigation, coinage, trade marks, copyright, patents, the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, the Postal Service, Customs and Excise, income tax and any tax on profits. (The relevant provisions of the Government of Ireland Act are Sections 4, 9, 19, 21 and 47.)

In addition, legislation subsequent to the Act of 1920 has conferred on United Kingdom Ministers powers that are exercisable in relation to Northern Ireland. Notable examples of this are the Agriculture Acts (in relation to the agriculture guarantee system) and the legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (BROADCAST)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the "Twenty-Four Hours" programme on British Broadcasting Corporation television on 6th October on the questions of withdrawal from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf by 1969–70, contracting its rôle in Western Germany and a defence budget well below £1,750 million a year, represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made no such statement, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Yes, but he gave the Answer that he would not agree to conference policy. Would not this arms squeeze largely avoid the other kind of squeeze, which is a much more painful one? When are we to see the massive reductions which the Prime Minister

promised and which nearly all Labour M.P.s are anxiously waiting to see?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend had me reading very carefully several times the broadcast of my right hon. Friend, because I thought he might have got something which I was not able to see, but obviously he had not. In regard to the general point, we have debated this frequently in defence and economic debates. Reductions following confrontation are happening and my hon. Friend will see the results of this quite quickly now. In addition, we announced in July a further cut of £100 million in overseas expenditure.

Lord Balniel: As the Question refers to withdrawal from Singapore and the Persian Gulf by 1969–70 and this could give rise to widespread misunderstanding, will the Prime Minister make absolutely clear that this is in no way Government policy?

The Prime Minister: I do not think the tabling of a Question normally gives rise to misunderstanding. The provision was set out in the Defence White Paper last year and has been confirmed in every defence debate since then. I do not think there is any room for misunderstanding.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (SPEECH)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister without Portfolio at Doncaster on 29th October about direction of labour represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 3rd November to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).—;[Vol. 735, c. 166.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Prime Minister recall that that Answer referred to his right hon. Friend as saying that there was no question of direction of labour, whereas the only verbatim account of what he said was that no Government wished to introduce direction of labour? As this Government are doing what "no Government would wish


to do" about once a week, could not the Prime Minister give a clearer reassurance on this point than that?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member is aware of the circumstances of the issue of the hand-out and the difference between what was in the handout and what my right hon. Friend actually said. He made it clear that this is something which no Government would wish to do in peace time, and I have repeatedly said that there is no question of introducing direction of labour in our policy. I have said this in the House two or three times recently, but, if the hon. Member wants to get a bit of fun out of an Evening Standard stunt about particular shorthand writers, he is perfectly at liberty to do so.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that on the occasion referred to in the Question I sat next to my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio and distinctly heard him add the qualification which was quoted in The Times on 31st October that such action was unthinkable in times of peace; that the hand-out issued by the Labour Party instructed journalists to check against delivery; that there was a local journalist present who did this and who confirmed the correction; and that the local people who were present at the meeting consider such questions to be nothing other than silly, trivial, squalid muck-raking?

The Prime Minister: I would certainly take that statement from my hon. Friend, who was there, rather than from the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) or from the political stunt in the Evening Standard a couple of days later. The Times was right, and this hand-out was subject to check against delivery. Anyone who knows my right hon. Friend will know perfectly well what he meant and will accept—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen know that what I said is correct—that, if my right hon. Friend made the statement, he was speaking

on behalf of the Government. It has been confirmed repeatedly in the House that there is no question of direction of labour.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If there is no question of the Government's introducing direction of labour, why did the Minister without Portfolio put a reference to it in his hand-out?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had perhaps better study the full statement and he will see the reasons why my right hon. Friend raised this question, that this was one of the things that a Government might be forced into if they did not do certain things, including a prices and incomes policy. My right hon. Friend went on to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) confirmed, he being present, and the right hon. Gentleman not being present, that there was no question of it in peace time.

BILL PRESENTED

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Bill to amend the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts, including the law relating to evidence, and to the qualification of jurors, in such proceedings and to appeals in criminal cases; to reform existing methods and provide new methods of dealing with offenders; to make further provision for the treatment of offenders and the management of prisons and other institutions; to make further provision with respect to legal aid and advice in criminal proceedings; to amend the law relating to firearms and ammunition; to alter the penalties which may be imposed for certain offences; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Roy Jenkins; supported by Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Miss Alice Bacon, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Maurice Foley, and Mr. Dick Taverne; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS)

3.32 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: Sir Barnett Janner(Leicester, North-West)rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to leave the Chamber do so quietly and those who remain sit down?

Sir B. Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highway.
This is perhaps an appropriate moment to ask, for the fourth time in a number of years, for leave which has been granted on three previous occasions to me and to several hon. Members prior to me. When the Law Commisison issued its First Annual Report, it stated, under Item V, Civil Liability for Animals:
The law concerning civil liability for damage done by animals has over a number of years been widely criticised both in the courts and by the general public. The general trend of criticism is that the law is too dependent on distinctions which belong to a past age, and that it fails to deal with contemporary needs. The Report of the Committee on the Law of Civil Liability for Damage by Animals"—
then there is an asterisk referring to a Cmnd. Paper of 1953; and I emphasise this, because it is rather important in relation to what I shall say—
which attempted to make these criticisms has not yet been implemented, and various attempts in Parliament to reform the law, or particular aspects of it, have so far met with no success.
I fail to understand, and I am sure that hon. Members and the general public will fail to understand, why a Bill such as I now seek leave to introduce has not yet reached its final stages and been put on the Statute Book so as to protect the many thousands of people who are affected by the present silly situation. Perhaps I should not say "silly" in relation to such a tragic situation.
We are devising ways and means of stopping accidents on the roads. We are told that within a measurable term of years there will be as many motor cars on the road as there are inhabitants in the country at present. The death and injury toll rises by leaps and bounds. Something could be done to cure, or at

least mitigate, this toll if there were a law compelling a person who did not fence his land and who allowed animals to stray on to the road to pay compensation if someone was injured.
This is a very serious question, because many breadwinners have been killed or mutilated because the owners of animals or of land on which animals graze do not have proper fencing and permit animals to stray. As a result of straying animals, motorists, no matter how careful they might have been, have been killed or maimed merely because there is not a law sufficiently stringent to make the owners of land aware of the duty upon them, not only in a criminal sense but also in a civil sense.
I gather from an Answer given a few days ago that the Home Office Bill which is about to be presented will increase the fines payable in certain circumstances in respect of straying animals. This will not meet the point to which I am directing the attention of the House, because the Law Commission was quite right to consider this proposition practically at the beginning of its activities. The House will forgive me if I repeat the very succinct statement made by Lord Greene in a case dealing with a matter of this description.
A few moments ago I said that a Committee had considered the matter; it was under the guidance of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard. It stated categorically that the position should be remedied; it said in no uncertain terms that there was no question of the necessity for this; and it stated the method by which it could be done. Thirteen years have passed, and during that time numerous people have tried to get some kind of compensation but have been told by their lawyers that it is entirely impossible, because the law does not provide for compensation in these cases.
Lord Greene said:
The rule appears to be ill adapted to modern conditions. A farmer who allows his cow to stray through a gap in his hedge on to his neighbour's land, where it consumes a few cauliflowers, is liable in damages to his neighbour, but if, through a similar gap in the hedge, it strays on to the road and causes the overturning of a motor omnibus, with death or injury to thirty or forty people, he is under no liability at all. I scarcely think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs in the twentieth century. If it should prove


not to be open to the House of Lords to deal with the rule, the attention of the legislature might be directed to considering the whole position with a view to ensuring the safety of his Majesty's subjects when they are lawfully using the highway.…
Lord Greene explained that the Committee had sat and pointed out, as did Lord Donovan, who was once a Member of this House, that the law as it stood was seriously defective in this sense.
I have received a vast number of letters from time to time and so have other hon. Members. Many are tragic, and I should like to quote from just one or two.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he has two minutes left.

Sir B. Janner: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I said that I would quote from just one or two letters.
One was from a man who was travelling by car with his wife on the A.11 at 10 a.m., when
… without any warning (neither of us saw anything) a bull jumped on to the bonnet, went through the windscreen, ripped the roof, and rolled off the back of the car. We were both knocked unconscious, the car landing up on the opposite grass verge against a tree.
He then refers to their injuries, which had to be attended to.
That is but one among dozens of letters which contain a similar kind of complaint. I am sure that the House will realise that it is time that the situation was remedied and will grant me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Barnett Janner, Mr. Arthur Probert, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Richard Mitchell, Mr. Paul B. Rose, Mr. Stanley Orme, Sir Myer Galpern, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Eric Ogden, and Mr. Harry Howarth.

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS)

Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highway, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th December, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(LONDON BOROUGH ELECTIONS.)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from 'shall' to 1968' in line 9 and to insert:
'take place in 1967, 1969 and each third year after 1969'.

The Chairman: I think that it may be for the convenience of the Committee to discusss, at the same time, the following six Amendments:

Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out from 'shall' to '1968' in line 9 and insert:
'take place in 1967, 1971 and each third year after 1971'.

Amendment No. 4, in line 9, leave out from '1968' to end of line 12.

Amendment No. 5, in line 13, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 7, in line 19, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment No. 8, in line 21, leave out from second 'each' to end of line 23 and insert:
'take place in the same year as the elections and retirements of councillors'.
and Amendment No. 9, in line 24, leave out subsection (4).

I should point out that there is a verbal inaccuracy in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I think that they are intended to read "… leave out from 'shall' to 'and'…"instead of"… to '1968' in line 9 …"and with the consent of the Committee I propose so to interpret the Amendment.

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir Eric. It is in no spirit of controversy that I start this Committee stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am on a rather different point —by observing that it is something of a euphemism to say that "it may be for the convenience of the Committee" to take together seven of the most important Amendments on what we regard as a very


bad Bill. I am sure that it is for the convenience of the Government, but then it would obviously be for their convenience if we did not have a Committee stage at all. The view of the Opposition is that we should debate many of these matters separately, and we hope that we can at least divide separately when we come to the time for that.

The Chairman: On that point, I should perhaps have added that it will be open to the Committee if it so desires to have a Division on any of the Amendments. With regard to the right hon Gentleman's other point, I should observe that a number of the Amendments which I have suggested should be considered with Amendment No. 1 are, in fact, consequential upon it.

Mr. Macleod: With respect, Sir Eric, some of them are. But the decision is, in any case, for the Chair. I am merely pointing out that the conventional phrase "it may be for the convenience of the Committee" is, perhaps, not particularly appropriate at this stage.
We come to the Committee stage from the somewhat rougher waters of Second Reading, where, to adapt a phrase about a different activity, one has only one speech and a limited number of interventions. In Committee one may usually, subject to the rules of order and the Chair, and subject always to the activities of the Government Chief Whip, make as many speeches as one chooses, unless Amendment No. 1, which is the key Amendment, is to be accepted, in which case we could save many hours of debate.
I shall address myself mainly to Amendment No. 1, which is really in two parts. The first and most important part says that the elections for the London borough councils should take place next year. There is now overwhelming evidence that the whole Bill is founded on the complete and general misconception that in 1967 the elections to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs would have been on the same date, whereas of course, the real situation is that the elections to the G.L.C. would have been on 13th April and those to the London boroughs a month later, on 11th May. That is a very different proposition.
To illustrate my observation that the whole Bill is founded on a misconception

I should like to read to the House how the B.B.C. reported this matter the morning after Second Reading, at 7 a.m. on the Home Service:
Now, elections in London. As things stand at present, if you live in one of the London boroughs, you could find yourself going to the polls twice on the same day next Spring. Once, to elect your local representative on the G.L.C. and a second time to elect the councillors in your own borough. But now it seems unlikely that you will have to face this problem because in the Commons last night the Government had a majority of 111 when the London Government Bill got a Second Reading.
The nice, kind Government say that they have prevented us from going to the polls on the same day, which we would not have had to do, and voted separately on the same day, which of course, again, we would not have had to do.
It seems incredible that that sort of report should go out from the B.B.C. I am told that a correction was made two days later, but it shows that the view that elections next year were to be on the same day is fairly widely held outside the House.
On Second Reading, I ullustrated the point which I then made by reference to what had been said by Councillor Tom Newson, Chairman of Ealing Education Committee, in December, 196. I have here the report in the Middlesex County Times, quoting Councillor Newson's words, the very first words said, as far as we know, about this proposition. This is what he said, reported in the Middlesex County Times of 10th December, 1965:
Personally, I think it is wrong to hold the London Borough and the Greater London Council elections on the same day in 1967, as the London Government Act says. I hope people will see the light of day, and separate them.
Councillor Newson, like the B.B.C., was mistaken. No doubt, he was genuinely mistaken, but mistaken he was.
I come next to that famous programme which the Committee will expect me to refer to, the David Frost programme, of which I have a transcript here. I shall not read all of it because, if I may say so to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), it gets a bit repetitive.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Certain points in it needed to be repeated.

Mr. Macleod: No doubt, but I shall make some quotations from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey. He said:
In London, we should have had a situation where in fact the Greater London Council and the Borough elections were all held on the same day, and this would have meant that the electors of London, about 8 million of them, would in fact have gone in and faced ballot papers with masses of names on them, which is absolutely ludicrous.
A little later the hon. Gentleman said:
First of all, as I understand the Act—I have read the Home Secretary's speech very carefully—the Home Secretary said that with the Bill as it is now active, the elections are on the same day".
Finally, he said:
I am telling you, Quintin, that the Home Secretary in the presentation of this Bill argued that in fact the Bill had to be changed in the form we did it because of the very reasons I have given, that the elections were on the same day.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey will recognise on this issue he was wrong. He is Chairman of the London Labour Party and of the coordinating committee of the London Labour Party. On Second Reading, I called him—I believe that it is a correct verdict, and I do not use the words at all opprobriously—the true victor and the true author of the Bill. I say at once, as I made clear to him, that I do not suggest from that that he, in his personal capacity, made any approach to the Home Secretary about it. Of course not. The action he took is one which it is perfectly reasonable for him, given his somewhat misguided politics, to take in the capacities which he held.
The Committee will note that for the third time we have someone, now the hon. Member for Bermondsey, who is an important figure in this matter, genuinely believing a mistake. It is beginning to strain the intellect a little, but we must once more accept that it is genuinely true that the hon. Gentleman thought that the elections would be on the same day. It goes one stage further, in fact, because the hon. Gentleman will recall that councillors from my own Borough of Enfield were asked later in that programme why they had voted for the change, and they said, "Because we were told that the elections would be on the same day".
This begins to become very interesting. The same phrase is used by someone else deeply connected with the matter. In his letter to The Times of 26th October, Councillor Prichard, Chairman of the London Boroughs Association, said:
The provision in the London Government Act of 1963 that elections for the London borough councils and the Greater London Council should be held on the same day would have involved a very heavy burden for administrative staffs and confusion for electors.
This matter is of first importance because, if I am right, the whole Bill is genuinely based on a misconception which can be put right only by acceptance of the Amendment. I wish to make clear that I believe that all these people were genuinely mistaken. But we now know that the Chairman of the London Labour Party was mistaken. We know that the Chairman of the London Labour Party co-ordinating committee—it is the same person—was mistaken. The Chairman of the London Boroughs Association used the same phrase in his letter to The Times.
We know that the council in the most marginal of all boroughs, my own council, took its decision on what is an entirely false premise. We know that the very first speech made by Councillor Newson, in December last year, was based entirely on misapprehension.
Thus, in every case, the Bill has been presented, to the point of being put to the Home Secretary and so to the House, on a view and analysis which, in the light of what I have put to this Committee during the last few minutes, simply cannot be sustained. It follows, therefore, that the Bill is not a Bill with which we can proceed unless something very similar to the Amendment which I am proposing is accepted.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that I presented the Bill on a false premise on Second Reading? I made it perfectly clear, and I was never in any doubt about what the position was.

Mr. Macleod: I wonder. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall read from HANSARD. Referring to the speech of the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said:
… the right hon. Gentleman then introduced this Bill, under which the elections are


to be held in separate years. He then dealt with the argument about whether the elections should be held in different months of the same year. He put forward for saying that they should not be held in different months in the same year his case against having them on the same day. He did this so brilliantly that by the time he had finished speaking everyone accepted his argument for not having elections on the same day as an argument for not having them in the same year, and on this I compliment the right hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 277.]
Perhaps the Home Secretary's speech was not as crystal clear as the likes to think. It certainly misled not only the B.B.C., but also his hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, as the transcripts I have read clearly show.
Finally on this point, I cannot resist quoting from a document from the Conservative Central Office dated 14th December, 1965. I said on Second Reading that the intelligence of Central Office would be proved to be more lively than that of the Home Office. This is what was said:
It is considered that the London Labour Party did not fully realise that the election dates would be in separate months, and that the 'relevant year of election' in the Act would not be until after the overhaul of constituencies, that is, in 1970".
The Home Secretary is satisfied that his own speech was clear, and I am bound to say that I was not in any doubt about the situation. I am quite prepared to concede that, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes, but the other evidence is clear, too. One of my hon. Friends found the right hon. Gentleman's argument brilliantly confusing, to paraphrase the quotation I have read, and it is plain, also, that on several occasions the hon. Member for Bermondsey said that he had read the speech and had come to the conclusion that the elections were to be on the same day.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: This is what I said on Second Reading:
If we accept, as I hope the House will, that the case against having elections in successive months of the same year is a very strong one, it remains to be decided whether the change to hold them in sucessive years should be made now, that is, before the elections otherwise due to be held for Greater London in April 1967, and for the boroughs in May 1967, or whether we should wait until 1970 when the next set of elections would fall due."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 236–7.]

I fail to see how I could possibly have made it clearer than that.

Mr. Macleod: Very well. Then will the right hon. Gentleman explain how, after he had made it so crystal clear, his hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, who is a very intelligent man, read that speech and still could not find the nice distinction which the right hon. Gentleman has made?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman must not try to get away with that. He said earlier that, in his view, I had not made the position clear. I told him that I was not in any doubt and I had made it clear. He said, "I wonder". I do not know what he meant by that, but it was clearly intended to have certain undertones. I have now given him a quotation which is absolutely clear from my speech on Second Reading. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to go on in that way and to mislead the House by quoting what someone else said. He should withdraw.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: May I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend and of the Home Secretary another passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech? He said:
We have to recognise that electors, in practice, already find it difficult to distinguish between the large number of candidates listed on the local election ballot papers, and it is important not to increase this difficulty by presenting each elector, on the same occasion, with not one but two ballot papers, one of them involving a multiple choice and the other involving a choice between several candidates for a single seat."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 234.]
How can the Home Secretary say that that did not carry the plain implication that he was talking about two elections on the same day?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Surely the hon. Member and the right hon. Member would be capable of understanding that one can take an argument in a series of stages? In my Second Reading speech I applied myself first to the argument as to what the long-term position should be, and then, if we decided that a change should be made in the long-term position, whether we should make it in 1967 or in 1970.

Mr. Iain Macleod: If I may intervene in my own speech for a moment, the


Home Secretary really must not start bleating like a wounded sheep because he is attacked. The point is perfectly clear. I said—and he will find this in HANSARD—that I found what he said to he satisfactory. Is that all right?
But it remains a fact, does it not, that the Minister—and his Government colleagues, sitting not very far away from him, NOD are deeply concerned with this matter—did not come to that conclusion. It also remains a fact that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hornsey did not come to that conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) cut in with the next sentence that I was about to make in my speech. He read out the report of what the Home Secretary said, which showed that, if I may coin a phrase, he was really too clever by half in his argument to the House.
Proceeding on this amiable note to the next point in my argument, there is, in fact, a formidable case, which the Committee should not ignore, for having these two great elections on the same day. I am not talking about separating them by months or years, but about the original date in 1970 as it would be if we let the Bill remain as it is. This did not just happen by accident. It was considered by the Royal Commission, and its argument for not having a Bill, such as the one before the Committee was based on the Home Secretary's comments.
I am referring to the Royal Commismission of 1957 to 1960, which said:
We believe it would be possible and, if so, we think it very desirable that elections for the Council.…
that is, the L.C.C.—
… and elections for the Greater London London borough Councils should be held simultaneously so that at one and the same polling booth at one and the same time an elector votes on a Parliamentary constituency basis for one member of the council for Greater London and on a ward basis for his own Borough councillors as at present.
It seems to us that this would bring about a very desirable measure of simplification and would help Londoners to understand better the types of council for which they are voting and the functions of the councils to which the candidates are seeking election.
There is very strong and reasonable evidence, not only for not having this Bill, but also for not having this Amendment, and for allowing 1963 to take its

own course in conjunction with the 1963 Act.
If I may say so, the Minister of Defence for the Army—I think that the Minister of State, Home Office, misheard a hurried reference that I made in my Second Reading speech and thought that I meant the Secretary of State, whereas I meant the Minister of State for the Army, who is an alderman—was reported in the Acton Gazette of 15th December, 1965 as saying:
A two-in-one election day for Ealing in 1967 gets the blessing of Alderman Gerry Reynolds, M.P. I don't know what all the fuss is about.… Many authorities throughout the country have held two elections on the same day for many years.
It then explains what would be entailed by having the G.L.C. and borough elections in Ealing on the same day. He speaks about the candidates' names for the G.L.C. election and the report goes on:
Alderman Reynolds favours the idea of the two elections on the one day.
In the past, the Middlesex County Council elections have always had a lower electorate than the local elections. Here's the chance of getting more people to vote for the G.L.C. at the same time as they elect their local councillors.
So, against all this, what is the Home Secretary able to put? I have shown that the Royal Commission is on my side—or, in a sense, is against us both because the Royal Commission would not want either the Bill or the Amendment. The Royal Commission is certainly against the proposal enshrined in the Bill. I have shown the Home Secretary that a member of his own Government, arguing, of course, in his capacity as an alderman, was in favour of that. I have shown him the evidence, which I think stands up, that there is, to put it at its mildest, overwhelming ignorance about the question of the date.
The Home Secretary must agree that the evidence I have adduced to the House is formidable, going from the B.B.C., through the Frost programme, to the original statement back in December, 1965. Against this, the Home Secretary produces what he calls a narrow balance of argument that a town clerk will find it marginally more convenient to have the elections in separite years. I am bound to say that I find this a very curious argument to put before the House


of Commons, particularly at rather a late stage. This was not referred to in the answers which the Home Secretary gave, mainly to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), earlier this year.
I have a Written Question on the Order Paper for today, which, no doubt, the Home Secretary will answer in due course. The point seems to be so important that perhaps I should let the Committee know for what information I am asking. I am asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department
when and by whom under his general authority a working party of town clerks of London boroughs was appointed to consider the question of elections under the London Government Act 1963; when and to whom it reported; which town clerks were members of the working party; and whether he will make copies of their report available to hon. Members.
Perhaps the Home Secretary will deal with this point. A copy may be in the Library, but I do not know of it. We really cannot judge the strength of the Home Secretary's case from his Second Reading speech alone. We must see the evidence on which it is based, and the evidence on which it is based is the report of the town clerks, in connection with which he said quite frankly that they felt that at best it was a marginal advantage.
I should like to know—and this is why I should like the terms of reference of this working party—at what point in time they were invited to address their minds? In other words, were they invited to address their minds to the complication which would arise in 1970 if the 1963 Act were allowed to roll on unchecked, or to the complications, which most people think wholly imaginary, which would arise in 1967 if one election were held on 13th April and the other on 11th May?
It is of the first importance that we should know exactly to what point this inquiry by the town clerks was addressed. We should have this information in full at the earliest moment. I am not complaining about what is an important Question on the Order Paper for today. I am merely indicating the importance that we on this side of the Committee have to give to it, the importance to seeing this report in full, and, in turn, the

importance that the Home Secretary gave to it when he spoke.
I must repeat the point I made on Second Reading, that this honourable House is not concerned in the last resort with the administrative functions of returning officers, for whom no doubt—as I said in another context it would be convenient for the Government not to have a Committee stage—it would be convenient not to have any elections.
The point which concerns us is whether we are protecting the right of the electorate, who have been expecting, and will expect until the moment that this Bill receives the Royal Assent, the right to vote next year on matters which are, of course, of the gravest and greatest concern to them.
In my view, the Home Secretary simply cannot make out a case. He has based his case against this Amendment —not directly, but for the Bill, which comes to much the same thing—on low polls. I think that we shot down that argument on Second Reading and I do not want to go over the figures again. There is nothing in the Home Secretary's case or, even at best, a less than 1 per cent. margin comparing like with like, and it is inconceivable that we should base a Bill with such profound consequences upon such a slender foundation.
The precedents, as far as they are relevant—though here, of course, there are no changes in boundaries at all—are in favour of our arguments; that is to say, the Chuter Ede precedent is wholly on our side and would operate in almost exactly the way we suggest. The first part of my argument, therefore, is that next year should see the start of the elections; and I will deal with the second part much more quickly, as I think that the first part is a good deal the more important.
The second part of the argument is: if we decide to stagger elections, how are we to do it? One way, which we cannot discuss until we come to Clause 2, would be not to stagger the London borough elections, but to stagger the Greater London Council elections. That way has some attractions to some people, but I do not think that it would be in order for me to argue it now.
If, then, we are to be confined by Clause 1 to the London borough councils,


two methods face us. One is the way outlined in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself in Amendment No. 1, and the other, as is suggested in an Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) and others of my hon. Friends, is to have a four-year interval. I must make it clear that in both cases elections would take place next year, but in the case I am primarily arguing they would take place, after 1967, in 1969, and then each third year after 1969, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley goes for 1967, 1971 and each third year after that.
There are respectable arguments for having a four-year period—and I need not develop them as no doubt my hon. Friends will do so—not for extending, which is the Government proposal, the present period up to four years, but extending the next period to four years. My hon. Friend would then seek to do, with a mandate and openly, what the Government at present seek to do without mandate and furtively. On balance, though, for reasons that I shall summarise briefly, I prefer the first proposition of two years, though we would wish to vote also on the four-year Amendment.
The reasons are three. First of all, if we are to play about with the time-table —and this seems to be the result either of the Bill or of the Amendments, so we must take it as the basis for discussion—it is better, on balance, to bring the election nearer than to push it further away. If, after 1967, we have an election in 1969, obviously that is an advantage; that brings the elections nearer to the annual than to the triennial, which was the subject of another Amendment which has been withdrawn and Amendment No. 30 substituted, which is starred and therefore not selected at this stage.
The second reason is that if either side is at all sensitive to the charge of gerrymandering—an issue on which the Home Secretary showed himself remarkably sensitive at the end of his Second Reading speech, even going so far as to say, with small pedantic philology, that what he was doing was not, in the strict sense of the word, gerrymandering. I suppose it depends on how one defines that particular word. I personally think that gerrymandering is not confined to playing around with constitutions or bound

aries, but that one can do it equally by playing around with time. Governor Gerry of Massachusetts would call the right hon. Gentleman "brother" if he could see what he was putting before the Committee—

Mr. Marcus Worsley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Oxford Dictionary the definition of gerrymandering is to manipulate in order to gain an unfair advantage?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. I looked it up about an hour ago. I got Governor Gerry of Massachusetts in exactly the same place.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): On that definition, surely one of the greatest examples is the London Government Act.

Mr. Macleod: I do not think so. The Minister of State ought to have read, for example, the evidence presented by the London Boroughs Association, to which I shall probably return later, saying how marvellous everything in the garden now is—and I am paraphrasing somewhat roughly—as a result of the 1963 Act, and that it is so much better than before. If we are sensitive to this charge, clearly for the House as a whole the less time we are subjected to it the better, and the earlier we can get on a three-year basis the better.
Thirdly, if one is doing something unusual, it is clearly better to do it for a shorter than for a longer period.
Let me now summarise the case. We make no bones about our genuine belief that this is a squalid Bill. We think that we know a good deal about its origins, and the origins are frankly and plainly political. We hope to be able, during this Committee stage, and without the intervention of the Government Chief Whip, to develop some of the points I have outlined on this Amendment, which is the most important of a number of very important Amendments indeed.
Though a large part of this debate may well be conducted by London hon. Members, what is at stake is the very much wider interest outside London. If this can be done in London, there is no reason why it could not be done in other parts of the country, or why it could not


be done to Parliament itself. Perhaps I can quote from the Home Secretary's concluding words on 4th August—I am sorry that he has gone from the Chamber, but no doubt there is a good reason —when he said:
In considering the representations from London boroughs, I have to take into account the fact that the electorate of London boroughs have, in their wisdom, given very large majorities to Labour representatives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 667.]
If I may say so with respect, this is the very last thing the Home Secretary should take into account. It just shows what a deeply political Home Secretary we have when this consideration on this sort of issue weighs with him. With respect, it should not weigh.
It is absolutely unimportant, or should be, in the Home Secretary's mind, that this is something that has been recommended to him by the London Labour boroughs as a whole, with one or two exceptions, and opposed by the London Conservative boroughs as a whole, with one or two exceptions. If that were the case a very similar argument could apply to Parliament on the basis of the majority which the electorate thought fit to give in March to hon. Members opposite—

Mr. David Weitzman: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account what Conservative feeling was when the London Government Bill, 1963, was passed?

Mr. Macleod: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to follow up that point, because I do not see the relevance of his interruption. Would he like to take it up again?

Mr. Weitzman: The right hon. Gentleman talked about taking into account what Labour feeling was, but what happened in 1963, when his party took into account Conservative feeling and refused to take into account all Labour feeling?

Mr. Macleod: The shortest of many answers to that question is that the London Government Bill, 1963, was based directly on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, while this Bill

goes 100 per cent. against the advice of that same Royal Commission.

Miss Bacon: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what happened about Surrey, in respect of which the Government of the day decided against the recommendations of the Royal Commission because of pressure from his own party?

Mr. Macleod: But if the right hon. Lady recalls what she has just said, she will realise that she is supporting my point of view. I was Leader of the House and Chairman of the Conservative Party at the time. The fact that we took out parts of Surrey and other outlying counties was a disadvantage to our side in the elections. It proves exactly the point I am now making—that these are not matters which should be judged, as this one is apparently being judged, wholly on a basis of political expediency.
Unless these Amendments are carried, people in the whole of the Greater London area will have no opportunity to vote in London borough elections for or against the councillors of their choice. There are particular arguments to which we shall return later—for example, comprehensive schools in the boroughs which are education authorities outside the Inner London Education Authority. If the Home Secretary, the Minister of State, and everyone else opposite really believe in schemes of comprehensive education, or housing, or whatever it may be, if they believe that right, as it were, is on their side in these cases, they should put it to the test of the ballot box. That is all we ask.

Mr. Weitzman: I have listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), and I was particularly interested in his reference to expediency. It does not lie in his mouth to make such an accusation when one remembers that the motive behind the London Government Act, 1963, was expediency. The Act was wholly motivated by political expediency. It was hoped directly as a result that the Conservative Party would gain control of London. I am glad to say that it did not. We opposed that Act very strongly because of its motive.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that


the Act was based on the Royal Commission Report. That Commission contained a number of Labour supporters, including the greatest expert on local government in this country, Professor Robson. What price the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge of political motivation?

Mr. Weitzman: The Act followed some of the recommendations, but its whole essence was political expediency and nothing else. If the hon. Gentleman had been present in the House at the time and had followed the debates, studying the views put forward by us when we were in opposition, he could be in no doubt about the motive behind the Act. I do not think that anyone doubts that the Act was motivated by political expediency.
It lies ill in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West to put his Amendment on the basis of accusing the Government of political expediency with this Bill. The only reason that I can think of for the Opposition putting forward that argument is that they themselves think so much of political expediency that they cannot for one moment consider that the Bill has been introduced as a genuine move of administrative necessity.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Mr. Frederic Harris(Croydon, North-West)rose—

Mr. Weitzman: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but there will be opportunities at later stages for him to put forward any case there may be against what I have said.

Mr. Harris: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman give way on this point? He will recall that many of my hon. Friends and I opposed the London Government Act very strongly. Yet not a single Member of the party opposite is opposing this Bill. Does that not make nonsense of what he has said?

Mr. Weitzman: No hon. Member on this side of the Committee is opposing the Bill, because a strong case may be made out on grounds of administrative need and of putting the matter upon a proper basis. I propose to prove that that is so. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West made great play of the fact that certain statements were made about elections being held on the same day. He should read the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. If anyone has any such mis-

conceptions he has only to do that. It is all very well accusing someone of having made a statement, but let us look at the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:
Clause 2 makes provision for the date of ordinary elections to the Greater London Council (which under the London Government Act 1963 were ultimately to be combined with the London borough council elections).
It was clear to everyone that, as the position stood, if there was no alteration, the elections for the G.L.C. would take place in April and the elections for the borough councils would take place within a month and that if the provisions of the Act stood the 1970 elections would be on the same day. There was, therefore, every right for chairmen of committees and members of the councils to talk about what would happen when the elections took place on the same day, as they would do in 1970.
What is the position? If, under the Act, we were to have G.L.C. elections in April 1967, followed a month later by elections for the borough councils, there was a real practical difficulty from the administrative point of view. It is not only the question of town clerks and their difficulties—and I assure the Committee that these would have been genuine, and I see no reason why this Committee should not have regard to them. There is a further factor.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West may not know much about the Greater London Council or the borough council elections. I do not know whether he has any experience of them. But surely he will recognise the position. If a G.L.C. election were held in April 1967, with a long list of candidates on the ballot paper, with all the organisation required—which applies to the Conservative Party as much as to the Labour and Liberal Parties— and then, a month later, in the same borough, another election for the local council had to be held, we should be throwing a very great burden on the electors and it is wrong to do so.

Mr. Worsley: Mr. Worsley rose—

Mr. Weitzman: May I continue for a few moments?
We have had many elections in the last two or three years following upon one another and it would be a great imposition on the electors if, within a


month of one election, another followed. It would entail great hardship and expense. This is not a party matter. It is not a question of saying that this is confined only to the Labour Party. It affects both sides, for both would suffer hardship which should be avoided.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Explanatory Memorandum as making clear the position, which was not so clear to the Chairman of the London Labour Party. Can he point to the sentence in the Memorandum which says that the London borough elections for 1967 were going to be in May, 1967, and not in April, 1967?

Mr. Weitzman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman heard my reference. I made it clear that the reference to Clause 2 referred to elections being held upon the same day in 1970. That is clear.

Mr. Hogg: No.

Mr. Weitzman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at it the words within the brackets are:
…(which under the London Government Act 1963 were ultimately to be combined with the London borough council elections).

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. and learned Member point out where it says that they were to be combined in 1970? I cannot find it. Perhaps he has a different copy from mine.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has considerable ability, and I am sure that he is able to read the Bill and to understand what it means. I do not doubt for a moment that as a Member of the House of Commons the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows exactly what is meant. I was pointing out the fallacy of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, who was suggesting that we need not bother about having elections on the same date. The whole difficulty has arisen because there were to be elections on the same date in 1970. Anyone can understand from reading the Explanatory Memorandum that that did not apply to 1967. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has diverted me from my argument about the elections in 1967.
These elections, for the Greater London Council in April and for the borough councils in May, were to be separated by four weeks. If the matter had remained there, great hardship would have been imposed on the electors. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West has very little regard for town clerks or returning officers. I appreciate that his argument is that we need not take much notice of them and that they do not matter and that they are only the administrative machinery. However, we have to have regard for the electors. They are the people who matter. It is no good grinning about it, and it is no good the right hon. Member shaking his head about it.
The people who matter most are the electors, and one of our main considerations should be how they will be affected. I challenge the right hon. Member to deny that if there is an election for the Greater London Council in April next year, followed a month later by borough council elections, great hardship will be placed on the electors. I have had representations from many members of my own party about the difficulty which would arise in my constituency if the matter remained there, and I therefore welcome the change which has been made in that direction.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: As the hon. and learned Member is so concerned about the rights of the electors, does he consider it right that they should be denied the opportunity of voting about the future education of their children before it is fixed by the boroughs concerned?

Mr. Weitzman: I know the phoney argument which is put from the other side of the Committee. The electors will have the opportunity of dealing with the matter at the proper time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good hon. Members opposite interrupting in that way. I shall make my case and if they do not like it, they need not. I do not like many of their arguments, but at least they give me the opportunity of speaking.
The main argument here is concern for the electors. I say that it would be imposing a grave burden on the electors if there were an arrangement whereby a month elapsed between the date of the election for the Greater London


Council and that of the borough council elections. Administratively what is now proposed is a sensible arrangement. Moreover, it tidies up the matter in a proper way, because thereafter—

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again. As he is aware, this Parliament will terminate on 31st March, unless there is a prior dissolution. Does he consider that the double burden on the elector; at that time, with the local elections, will be a good argument for postponing a General Election of Parliament?

Mr. Weitzman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that although Parliament will have to terminate by 31st March, a Parliament never goes its full time of five years. With all respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that was an absurd argument which was merely trying to draw a red herring. It reminded me of one of those rollicking speeches which one sometimes hears at the Old Bailey.
I have made the argument about the administrative arrangements for 1967. But the Bill also tidies up the matter by laying down specifically a period of three years for the election of the Greater London Council and the election of the borough councils. My own view is that the Amendment is put forward in the wrong spirit. It is simply confirmation of the sort of suspicious attitude to which I referred on Second Reading. This is an administrative Bill on sound lines which tidies up the position, and I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. John Hunt: It gives me great pleasure to support the Amendment and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). As has been readily conceded, we on this side of the Committee accept the argument that there is a case for holding the G.L.C. and borough council elections in different years. The fundamental difference between us, which has emerged today as it did on Second Reading, is that we believe that this desirable separation of election dates can best be achieved by altering the terms for which borough councils are elected next year rather than by tampering with the existing law now.

These Amendments offer a way out for the Government in what has obviously become a very embarrassing situation for them.
It was quite clear during Second Reading that the Home Secretary had come along with very little knowledge or appreciation of the facts or of the motives behind this particularly squalid Bill. The draft of the Bill was one of his inheritances at the Home Office, and it appears that amid all his other preoccupations—gaol escapes, police pay and the increase in crimes of violence—he has not devoted sufficient attention to the very dubious parentage of the Bill. At the time of Second Reading, it could be pleaded that the Home Secretary just did not know, but that excuse is valid no longer because, as a result of the devastating exposure by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, the Home Secretary must be all too painfully aware of the sordid political pressures which have been brought to bear in this matter.
Today, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front bench have their last chance to withdraw from this squalid manoeuvre with dignity and honour. Let them have the courage to support and accept these Amendments, when all our suspicions of skulduggery at the Home Office will be forgotten. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept these Amendments, our worst fears will have been confirmed and we on this side of the Committee from then onwards will lose no opportunity of exposing this example of political sharp practice and of alerting the electors of Greater London to what we believe to be this gross subversion of their democratic rights.
Admittedly, if the Amendment were to be accepted, the G.L.C. and borough council elections would be held in the same year, although not, as has been stressed, on the same day, just once more. What is the objection to that? In my own borough of Bromley until recently we used to work under the system of annual borough council elections and so inevitably once every three years those elections clashed with the elections for the Kent County Council. But the elections were always a month or so apart, as they were to have been in the Greater London area next year, and there was rarely any confusion or difficulty.
What an extraordinary thing it is that amid all the stormy debates on the London Government Act three years ago, in which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North told us he played such a leading and notable part, this specific point about the clash of election dates which seems to assume so much importance in the minds of hon. Members opposite was not mentioned once. What has suddenly happened to arouse the interest of hon. Members opposite on this point?
I suppose that one hon. Member who might give us a clue on this new-found enthusiasm for a change of date is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who was with us earlier but has now left the Committee. I hope that he will be prevailed upon later to take part in our discussions, because I am sure he has unique inside knowledge of what has been going on which he should, in fairness, reveal to the Committee. I hope that he will return to the Chamber, and, provided he can keep his temper and get his facts right, I am sure that we shall welcome him to the debate. We shall all be fascinated to hear from him a full and frank revelation of the exact rôle of the London Labour Party in this mysterious affair and to know the secret of the immense power which he appears to wield in the corridors of power in the Home Office.
As I said on Second Reading—and I urge hon. Members opposite to take this point very seriously—there is a vital principle at stake. We say, and I am sure that we are right, that having elected a council for a fixed statutory period it is immoral and indefensible to extend that period arbitrarily without any further reference to the people most vitally concerned, the electors themselves. I therefore maintain that the only honest and honourable thing for the Government to do is to climb down, to admit their error, to accept the Amendment and to allow the election to take place next year as originally planned, and then to vary the terms in advance for future elections in the way suggested by the Amendments. There would then be no breach of faith with the electors, there could be no allegations of sharp practice or fiddle, and the proud principles of local democracy

in Britain would have triumphed over the sinister schemings of the London Labour Party.
We beg the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, to reconsider his approach. If he persists in his intentions, I believe that he will have brought disgrace to the party which he represents and shame to the very high office which he holds.

Mr. William Roots: I wish to address the Committee on the first Amendment. I am not entirely convinced that the case for an alteration in the provisions of the London Government Act, 1963, has been proved, but the House of Commons gave a Second Reading to this Bill and, therefore, we should proceed on that basis.
The fundamental point is, and should be, whether we should lightly, or at all, grant an extension of the period of office of an existing elected body. Surely the Committee must require the strongest possible reasons for doing that. On the contrary, hon. Members have a very strong feeling—indeed, it is more of a suspicion—that this amounts to a blatant holding on to power. In the speeches made on Second Reading, particularly in the rather unhappy little speech of the Home Secretary, the only valid reason which it seemed to me was adduced was the report of the little group of returning officers, and, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, my recollection is that he had not found that wholly convincing.
4.45 p.m.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) says that his main concern is for electors. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have heard that one before."] I am a little apprehensive of that remark, because I was about to claim the same feeling for myself. It is accepted that the main concern of all of us should be for the electors. In that case, this is a most extraordinary step to take.
Consider the matters on which there is an overwhelming case for saying that the electors should have as early an opportunity as possible of expressing their views. One of them has been referred to—comprehensive education. But let us consider others. The basis of the London Government Act was that to the


G.L.C. went the wide and generally technical matters affecting the whole county, whereas matters concerning the personal services, in particular, were allotted to the boroughs, to the smaller units.
The Bill does not postpone the G.L.C. elections. It postpones the borough council elections, which are about matters which concern people in their everyday life.

Mr. Weitzman: Mr. Weitzmanrose——

Mr. Roots: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not very quick to allow interventions. I will give way to him later.
That is the first objective, that the idea is to hang on to power in the boroughs for as long as possible. I should think that that strikes the Committee as very wrong.
Let us consider the matters on which, on the lest put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, the electors should have power to express an opinion immediately. Take Lewisham, where I am informed that a committee has been set up comprised only of the majority party on the council. Surely that strikes the hon. and learned Member as most extraordinary. Why does the position of minorities in Africa seem to hon. Members to be of enormous importance, whereas the position of minority groups on a London borough council is apparently of no importance and not one on which the electorate should express an opinion? It is reported in the Press that the leader of one of the London borough councils became so pugnacious that on the directions of the mayor he had to be carried out of a meeting by the police. Why should not the electors of that borough express their views at an early date?
In the London borough of Camden the financial arrangements have been the subject of devastating criticism by a quite independent official. But again the opportunity is to be taken to stop the electors putting that right. On the very test which the hon. Gentleman has chosen, concern to the electors, does he really think that the electors of that borough—and one can think of other examples in other boroughs —are not going out to see the financial arrangements put straight, in the other borough to see that the council's meetings

are conducted with reasonable decorum, and in the third one to see that minority groups are not fiddled out of their proper consideration of affairs which directly affect those whom they represent?
There can be no doubt that the fundamental principle with which we are concerned—and the hon. Gentleman's speech drew attention to it—is that of ensuring that there is no rigging of elections. The mere fact that some returning officers have said—and not very decisively—that there may be some difficulty and inconvenience to them should surely not override the fundamental principle to which I have drawn attention?
If there were any serious difficulty, far the easiest step would have been to postpone the G.L.C. elections.

Mr. Weitzman: I wonder what the Opposition would have said if we had postponed the G.L.C. elections?

Mr. Roots: I have already said that I consider that the London Government Act of 1963 had not proved a failure, but the House has given this Bill a Second Reading, and if there is to be a change it would have been far easier to have put back the G.L.C. elections. The strongest reason would have been that it is not a body which is nearly so closely concerned as the borough councils are with the individual's rights and services.
The Home Secretary admitted that the arguments for and against postponement were very evenly balanced. When one gets these further factors, when one considers the devastating harm which will be done by postponing the elections, surely this must be the decisive factor, unless there is this gerrymandering to which we have had reference.
There is no reason of benefit to the electors. I have shown that the electors, certainly in those three boroughs, will suffer very materially. There are other boroughs in which the electors have the matter of education with which to deal. Boroughs in the inner London area, where my constituency is, are not local education authorities, but in the three London boroughs to which I have referred the matter at issue is a factor of family life on which they are entitled to express an opinion by their vote.

Mr. Albert Evans: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that if there is some difficulty


it would be proper to delay the G.L.C. elections? Is he saying that it would be correct for the Government to arrange for the borough council elections to take place in 1967 and for them to delay the G.L.C. elections for a year?

Mr. Roots: I have twice said just the opposite. If it really were a matter of the convenience of the returning officers, it would have been an easier choice to delay the G.L.C. elections. I am anxious that the elections should take place. I regard it as essential that they should take place next year and that the electorate should be able to express its opinion on these extremely important points.
There are these vital matters which I am convinced need to be ventilated in public. The formation of a policy committee and the exclusion of representatives of the public from meetings of the council is a terrible step in local government. It is a step on the very road which hon. Members on both sides decry so loudly. It is a terrible thing if minorities are swept aside, because this process simply goes on, and time and again one has seen articles in the Press suggesting that that kind of thought should be remedied at the earliest possible moment.
Continental countries are allowing their systems to become subject to rackets. There has been criticism of the Germans, and of others, and yet here, on our very doorstep, there are three examples of gross maladministration. If only on this ground, the Amendment should be accepted, because it is monstrous that the electorate should be refused the opportunity to vote in those three boroughs, and in all the others.

Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus: Mr. Irving, I am always glad to see you in the Chair, but on this occasion I am rather sorry that the Chairman himself is not here, because he has deemed that these Amendments shall be taken together and, although I have no intention of debating his decision, I think that he has rather missed the sensitive nature of them. Like you, the Chairman is a London Member.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I understand how the hon. and gallant

Member feels, but I am afraid that he cannot debate the selection.

Sir E. Bullus: As I was saying, Mr. Irving, like the Chairman, you are a London Member. Traditionally you are outside politics. It is possible that by virtue of the impartiality of your office you are not aware of the sensitive nature and the strong and bitter feelings of the people of London about the proposed postponement of these elections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for exonerating the Chairman and myself from any prejudice in the matter, but he still cannot debate the selection.

Sir E. Bullus: Mr. Irving, I am not debating the selection now, but you have made my speech for me, because you have referred to your own impartiality, and traditionally the House would be astounded if either you or the Chairman left the Chair to sit on the Government benches and to make a political speech on behalf of your constituents. It would be heinous, and the decision unilaterally to postpone the election is equally heinous.
There is much more than the postponement of the elections at issue here. As has been pointed out on many occasions, a vital principle is at stake. It is the right or otherwise of the majority power unilaterally to alter times or conditions of future elections. It is as simple as that. This is the principle at stake, whether a majority power should have this right unilaterally to decide conditions and times of future elections.
Let us follow that argument to its logical conclusion. If the present proposals are enacted, the precedent is established whereby the majority power could, if it so desired, make it well nigh impossible for any minority to come to power in future. You will see, Mr. Irving, that I am leading to the logical conclusion. It is possible that the rules of the game could be so altered that in future a minority would have no chance at all of acceeding to power.
Similarly, if we continue with these logical conclusions—I have made this suggestion before—it could be brought even to this House. One could imagine three of four years hence the Prime Minister saying, "Owing to the


dire condition of the country following four years of Labour rule, this is quite the wrong time for an election and I have decided with my Cabinet that we shall dispense with the General Election and lengthen the term of office of the existing Administration."
5.0 p.m.
That is the logical conclusion. That could be done. It was done in the war —but by agreement. There is nothing that Parliament cannot do. Parliament is supreme. The only thing which Parliament cannot do is to bind a succeeding Government——

Mr. Albert Evans: Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman is being logical, he will surely agree that, in the event of the Prime Minister adopting the suggestion which he made, it would also be necessary for us to wind up the Conservative Party.

Sir E. Bullus: I find that rather irrelevant, but no doubt the hon. Member will develop his own point——

Mr. Frederic Harris: Is that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting?

Sir E. Bullus: Similarly, the point has been made that the continuation of the life of the old London boroughs for 12 months was a precedent. But this was not postponement of an election, but merely the extension of an existing administration's life before it was deceased. That also was done by agreement. It was not postponement.
The case from the Government benches for elections for the Greater London Council in alternate years is a good one. I am the first to admit that. It is sensible and logical, and we could accept it, if the conditions were right. But this is not to say that it should be used as an excuse to interfere with the legitimate period for which the councils were elected when there is bitter opposition not only from these benches but throughout the Metropolis.
There is no hurry for this change, except to establish schemes of comprehensive education in the boroughs. It is obvious that that is the reason for the hurry. If we could do without that, we could agree that it is logical to have elections in alternate years. Then let us have an orderly, constitutional change,

by agreement. Otherwise, the Government must accept the charge as undisputed that they are changing, for party political purposes, not at the behest of the Home Secretary but at the direction of the London Labour Party——

Mr. Weitzman: If it is fundamentally wrong to interfere with the date of elections, why is it not equally wrong to interfere with the composition of the London County Council and the composition of the boroughs, as the previous Government did on the last occasion?

Sir E. Bullus: I do not think that that follows. The hon. and learned Member might want to develop that point later, but it is not relevant to my case. I am saying that a postponement agreed by all parties is very different from the imposition of a decision of the majority party to hold or postpone elections for its own party political ends——

Mr. Weitzman: The London Government Bill, with respect, was not agreed to by the Labour Party. It was opposed by the Labour Party here, but was pushed through by the Opposition, who were then the Government.

Sir E. Bullus: With respect, that is a matter of opinion. Those proposals were based on the decisions of a Royal Commission. Not everybody agreed with those decisions, and it is well-known that I did not agree with them——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Sir E. Bullus: Well, I voted against them. But that is not a parallel case. This is the postponement of elections by the majority party. I see no parallel between putting into effect the main proposals of a Royal Commission and the postponement of the elections by the majority party for its own party political ends.
I said, Mr. Irving, that I am always glad to see you in the Chair. Equally, I am always glad to see—I nearly said my hon. Friend—and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). He is well respected in the House, but there is no doubt about it—this is his decision. This has nothing to do with the Home Office. This is done by the London Labour Party, about which I know something. I was not the secretary of the London Municipal Society for many years without effect. I was there during the 1949 elections,


when, had my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) got 22 more votes in her constituency, the Tories would have gained power in the London County Council.
I know something about this, and I know the power with the Government of the London Labour Party. This has nothing to do with the Home Office——

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish)rose——

Hon. Members: Tell us the truth.

Mr. Mellish: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) to accept from me, as I have already indicated to his right hon Friend, that at no time has the London Labour Party discussed this matter, at no time have I written to the Home Secretary, at no time have I ever spoken to him on this matter. Would he please take it, therefore, from me that he must not get up and say that the London Labour Party has manoeuvred it, because it knows nothing about it?

Sir E. Bullus: One is bound to accept the assurance of such an honourable Gentleman as the hon. Member for Bermondsey, but perhaps I can switch to the Minister of State, Home Office, who made something of my case for me.
The right hon. Lady accuses me at various times of "smears". I assure her that I have no desire to smear anyone. However, I cannot understand why she made my case for me, when in the Second Reading debate on 15th November, she said:
Let me go through carefully—this is important—the sequence of events, and what happened leading up to the Bill. The first letter which we had about this was from the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North, who wrote on 10th January, 1966 to my right hon. Friend.…
The right hon. Lady then quoted from my letter:
'I understand that the London Labour Party has approached you with proposals to change the date of the borough elections from 1967 to 1968. If this is so, may I lodge my complaint and that of my divisional Conservative Association. I would be grateful for a comment.'
The right hon Lady went on to say that this letter was answered by her hon.

Friend who was then the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and is now Minister of State, Welsh Office, and quoted from his letter:
'You wrote to the Home Secretary on 10th January about the suggested change in the year of the London borough elections from 1967 to 1968. The Home Office has received no proposals from the London Labour Party. I note that you would object to such a change.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 359–60.]
And I continue to object, because it is perfectly evident that a year ago consideration of these proposals was taking place.
There should be no question. They did not come to me out of the blue. I did not just dream it up and write to the Home Secretary. It was being discussed. It was suggested already that the London Labour Party had approached the Home Office. I have to accept the denial of the hon. Member for Bermondsey. But I do not claim to have had great foresight in this matter, yet I wrote about it a year ago.
It would be wrong of me to say that I have no desire to detain the Committee. However, I intend to end my speech now, as I will have much more to say later on this iniquitous Bill. To sum up, I think that the factual misrepresentation by statements of elections on the same day calls for some recognition from the Government and an endeavour to meet our reasonable demands in a spirit of real contrition.
The Government should recognise that they are taking unilateral action which will set a dangerous constitutional precedent. If the administrative convenience of town clerks and returning officers is to be the sole criterion for the change, this could have been obtained by the Government accepting the Amendment. If the Amendment is not accepted, the conclusion—that the change is for party political ends—is obvious.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that the electors of London, for whom he professed great concern, would be allowed to vote at what he called "the proper time". By "proper time" he plainly meant any time at which his party would not do remarkably badly,


and this Bill is designed to postpone the elections until "the proper time".
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on—and he seemed to be followed in this by the Minister of State—to draw a remarkable comparison between the Bill and the London Government Act. He seemed to be saying that it was every bit as wrong for a Government to bring in any local government reform which was opposed by the party in opposition as it was to gerrymander elections. I am sure that if the hon. and learned Gentleman reflects, he will realise that there would then be no local government reform at any time because there could never be unanimity on such matters. I should have thought that he would prefer to forget his party's behaviour in 1963, for while the Local Government Act is by no means perfect, it has made local government in London a great deal less obsolete than local government is elsewhere. We remember the churlish behaviour of the L.C.C., which at that time refused to allow its officials to testify before the Royal Commission.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the Labour Party came to power they did not, despite their earlier opposition, try very much to alter the London Government Act?

Mr. Gilmour: That was one of the good things the Labour Party did. Indeed, in a number of ways hon. Gentlemen opposite have had a remarkable tendency to carry out Tory policy. We welcome this.
I am speaking not as a London Government Member but because the Bill raises wider questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that the Bill was based on a misconception. It is really based on a double misconception, because the foundation on which the Clause is based—and which the Amendment seeks to alter—appeared in the Home Secretary's speech of 15th November, when he cited a report made by returning officers. That report was not published, so we do not know quite how ridiculous is was. On the face of it, it must have been particularly ridiculous, to him in view of his statement that:
… there is great force in the argument—which has been put forward for example by the Greater London Council—that it might well

be difficult for the elector, aproached by a political party in which would often be a single election address, to distinguish his preference for one party for borough purposes from his possible different preference for another party for Greater London purposes.
Earlier the right hon. Gentleman said:
The working party drew attention to a number of difficulties …".…[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c.234.]
and he enumerated them.
The Home Secretary is extremely interested in American politics and has great knowledge of them. I share his interest. He knows only too well what happens in America. He is aware that in many States at the same time American electors are voting, and returning officers carrying out elections, for a president, senator, congressman, state treasurer, judges, state assemblymen, state congressmen, mayor and a great many other officers and officials. Knowing this, how can the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the electors of Greater London are unable to carry out an election on the same day for two sets of councillors? The right hon. Gentleman said that, on the basis of the report which has not been published, the returning officers would be unable to handle this apparently complicated process.

5.15 p.m

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the Opposition has said that there is something to be said for desynchronising the London borough and G.L.C. elections?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that there is something to be said for doing that, but by agreement. The argument put forward by the Home Secretary, on the other hand, is totally implausible, above all in view of the right hon. Gentleman's considerable knowledge of American politics and practices. It may be that some of the electors of Orpington would not be able to distinguish between two sets of elections, but that is not the case in a great many other council areas in London.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Another point nearer home is the fact that under the old method of electing councillors for the L.C.C. electors often had to choose from among perhaps six candidates from each party, meaning a list of 12 or 18 candidates. On the old basis of electing councillors to the L.C.C.,


before the G.L.C. was formed, this often happened, and it happened to me when I stood for St. Pancras in 1954.

Mr. Gilmour: That is so, yet the Home Secretary was not worried about the possible stupidity of the electors next April but about their intelligence. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not reading a brief prepared by himself. I suggest that he found himself reading a lot of stuff which he knows, from his interest in and knowledge of the politics of other countries, does not bear serious examination.
The Home Secretary went on to speak about lower polls. It is true that the polls were low in 1964. Indeed, I had tabled a new Clause which you in your wisdom, Mr. Irving, have not called. Had it been called and accepted the Home Secretary would have been out of trouble and we would have had high polls. He would also have been able to bring forward a reforming Measure instead of this highly anti-reforming Measure.
If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about low polls, the right thing to do is to have the elections on the same day. He will recall the exciting election in New York last year for Mayor Lindsay, when there was an enormous ballot paper. It is difficult to work out the exact percentage poll on that occasion in New York. It was 96 per cent. of those registered, but the registration procedure there is very different from that operating in this country, and it is apparently impossible to find out the exact number of New York electors over 21 who are of voting age. By a rather specious means of calculation, I calculate, although I may be wrong, that nearly 60 per cent. of New York's electorate turned out. They did so because, first, they had individuals for whom to vote and, secondly, because the elections were on the same day and a considerable amount of excitement was built up. That being so, to recommend a Measure which separates elections, and at the same time, to complain of low polls, makes no sense at all, particularly to someone like the Home Secretary who understands American politics.
The Home Secretary was sensitive about the charge of gerrymandering. To someone like him it must indeed be very

disturbing to have had to introduce a Measure which combines all the worst features of American politics without, at the same time, introducing any of their advantages. To say by relying on a strict definition that this is not a gerrymandering Bill does not wash in these days of relativity and Einstein, for space and time are now very much the same. If we get the same result by altering the date as by altering the boundaries, it is gerrymandering.
In America, there is an even more modern form of gerrymandering. The Home Secretary will remember that in 1948 Mr. Lyndon Johnson became senator for Texas by a majority of 87 votes. He did that because in Duval County he polled the remarkable number of 4,622 votes and his opponent got 40. That is a much more modern gerrymandering performance than even the Home Secretary envisages, but at least the people in Duval County were allowed to vote, which is more than the electors in the London boroughs are to be allowed to do. It seems that the London Labour Party did not use the customary processes of consultation with the Home Secretary. The consultation was even more informal than usual.
We feel considerable sympathy for the Home Secretary in being landed with this most unpleasant foundling child. He is a reforming Home Secretary and we look forward to his doing great things. We feel sympathetic towards him because he has been landed with the Tammany Hall machinations of some of his colleagues, but by accepting this Amendment he now has an opportunity to undo some of the harm that the Bill could do.

Captain Walter Elliot: I was very interested in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who said that the whole purpose of the Bill was for the convenience of the electorate. We could agree that the convenience of the electorate is what we all seek, but how he reached that conclusion after reading the Home Secretary's speech is beyond me.
Unfortunately, I was away on Parliamentary business at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill which we are seeking to change. Coming back with,


I suppose, a slightly fresh mind, it has been illuminating to read the debate. I read that my hon. and right hon. Friends referred to the Home Secretary when bringing in the Bill as "innocent" and "naïve." I am not absolutely certain whether they meant that he was innocent or naïve in expecting us to accept the explanation he offered. If so, I think that the description of him was right.
I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that he was a front man for the London Labour Party who, as we know, are really responsible for putting forward this Measure. That suggested that he was innocent and naïve in accepting the Bill and that the reasons he put forward were not the actual reasons. I do not accept that. We have read recently that the Home Secretary is the best debater on his side of the House. I have even seen it stated that he is a possible heir apparent to the Prime Minister as leader of the Labour Party. That might well be so. When one reaches that position I do not think that he can be described as innocent or naïve in bringing forward a Bill such as this. I believe that he knows exactly what he is doing and I shall not accept any other explanation.
In his speech on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman started by saying that the Bill was relatively non-controversial. How anybody could say that about a Bill dealing with an election is beyond me. If there is anything controversial, or likely to be controversial, it is an elction. Anything that is proposed to alter its date or to alter the boundaries of a ward or constituency is bound to lead to most violent controversy. So I find that statement most surprising.
The right hon. Gentleman described it as a simple Bill. In length of wording and layout it is quite simple, but a Bill does not end there. I suppose that it is a simple operation to cut off a man's head. He puts it on the block and there is one stroke of the axe and his head is cut off. That is a very simple operation, but the effects are very profound. There is no doubt that the effects of this Bill will be very profound. We all know of the extremely violent controversy about comprehensive schools and botched-up plans which are being introduced in some boroughs. If the

elections are delayed a year those plans will be consolidated and it will be very difficult to change them. There is also the housing problem. The effects will be very profound although in lay-out the Bill may be simple.
I find it difficult to see why the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North—if he had read the Home Secretary's speech, which I have no doubt he did—thought the Bill was for the benefit of the electorate. What seemed to be the main and only real point the Home Secretary made was about the difficulties of returning officers and town clerks. Looked at in that way, if ever there were a case of the tail wagging the dog this is it. Professionals attached to the borough councils are in a position to overcome those difficulties. To put forward that as the main argument of the Bill seems absurd.
Theirs are not the only difficulties, either. There is the position of the councillors. I have spoken to some in my constituency recently. Part of my constituency is in a London borough. Most of them are very busy men who have other work to do during the day. When they came forward as candidates they wanted to do only three years as councillors. That was all the time they could afford. It is very difficult for them to take on another year. If they find that impossible to do there will be by-elections with all the difficulties——

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: The hon. and gallant Member says that they wanted to do only three years. But their term of office did not start until 1st May, 1965, because the other councillors were still in existence until that date.

Captain Elliot: The hon. Member may say that they did not get into the saddle for the whole period of three years, but they were operating for most of that time.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will have had the same experience in his borough as I have had in mine. It was in the first year when the committees were being arranged, and there was the hand-over from the previous authority. Many who were councillors on both councils had a great strain put upon them.

5.30 p.m.

Captain Elliot: I was about to make that point, but there is another point which is more important. They took on the job which they expected to end in 1967. Under this Bill it will not; it will go on for another year. That raises considerable difficulties for them.
Many arguments have been presented about the difficulties and the effects of having the Greater London Council elections and the borough elections a month apart or on the same day. I personally think that there are difficulties and complications if they are a month apart as at present. I would not change it as we have been committed to these dates, but I think that there are difficulties. If it were to be changed—I suppose we must accept that it will be—it would be better to change it and have the elections on the same day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) spoke about the American elections. Their voting is a most complicated process. Our electors, with all their education behind them, would have no difficulty about sorting out a couple of ballot papers. I believe that our ballot papers could be much clearer. The Home Office might consider, for example, putting the party label against the names of candidates.
If democracy is to remain democracy, certain legislation can be passed only with the agreement of the Opposition. I profoundly believe that anything to do with elections is one such type of legislation. If the Government choose to ride roughshod over the Opposition, not only will they progress along the dictatorial path which they are following in many other spheres but they will less and less enjoy the co-operation of the Opposition. If the Opposition are treated in this manner they can, if they care to do so, completely hold up Government business. The Opposition never want to do that. Such a process is bad for our democracy, but if it is forced on an Opposition they can do it.
I hope that the Government will think very profoundly on this point, because they are rapidly moving to the position when they will force the Opposition to resort to perfectly constitutional means of

holding up business. This fiddling with elections is just about the last straw.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: My impression of this debate and of the debate on Second Reading, which I followed with great interest, is that the Conservative Party is now trying to get its revenge on the Labour Government for what Labour Members did on the London Government Bill, 1963. Hon. Members opposite have said that the London Government Act was a political fiddle. Hon. Members on this side have been opposing the Bill in general, and speaking in favour of the Amendment in particular, having in mind what happened during those debates a few years ago.
I say that because there is little in principle dividing the two sides of the Committee. In spite of what the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) said, it is generally agreed by hon. Members that a strong case exists for not holding these elections simultaneously. The Leader of the Opposition has expressed this view. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has said that he agrees with it. This is not the question to which we should address ourselves today.
The question is whether we should continue the present temporary arrangements for holding the G.L.C. and the borough elections in the same year but in different months, either for 1967 or for the indefinite future, or whether we should come to some other arrangement for these elections. Twenty-seven out of the 32 London boroughs were in favour of some kind of change, even though only 20 of them—that is still a majority, and a substantial one at that—were in favour of the particular solution proposed by the Government this afternoon.

Mr. Richard Sharples: The London Borough of Sutton is not in favour. Nineteen is the correct figure.

Mr. Lubbock: That is true. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, a long time after the representations of the London Boroughs Association were submitted to the Home Secretary in April, the London Borough of Sutton changed its mind. One can only assume that some political pressure was brought to bear on that borough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I think so. It is not


only the London Labour Party which is capable of exercising political pressure.

An Hon. Member: And the Liberal Party?

Mr. Lubbock: Yes. I have advised the House of Commons of the part the London Liberal Party played in getting this legislation under way. I am not ashamed of that. It is the legitimate right of political parties to make their views known, although I prefer it always to be done in the open and not in some underhand way. In saying that, I am not accusing the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), because I believe implicitly in the assurances he has given. I think that the history given us by the Minister of State in her winding-up speech on Second Reading made absolutely clear what happened.
I said on Second Reading that it was odd that so much fuss should be made about the Bill by the Conservative Party when, as far as I knew, no demand had been made by members of the public for the existing arrangements to be maintained— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—for the London Borough elections and the G.L.C. elections to be held in April and May, respectively, of next year. No one has written to me saying that they think that this is the best of all possible arrangements and that the Government are wrong in introducing the Bill.
When I said this on Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) intervened and said that he had had a number of letters to that effect, including one from Orpington. He did not follow the usual custom of sending me that letter so that I could consider it and decide whether to put it forward as my own view. I wonder whether perhaps he made a mistake in the address and whether the letter was not from Orpington at all.
I reiterate the point that, if there had been some letters from members of the public addressed to hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading and who have spoken so far in Committee, I would have expected at least one or two of them to be quoted. Therefore, I can only assume that this pressure from the public in favour of what the Conservative Party allege are their democratic rights has not been exercised.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Has the hon. Gentleman had any requests from his constituency, or from the public in general, requesting the change the Government now propose to make?

Mr. Lubbock: No. I said that I had received no correspondence whatsoever, either calling for the change or objecting to it. Since I made those remarks on Second Reading, that debate has been fully reported and, as the hon. Member for Enfield, West told the Committee, it was fully discussed on the Frost programme, which has a very large audience, indeed. I should have thought that, even if our constituents had not read HANSARD or followed the debate in one of the daily newspapers, they might, as a result of seeing a reference to the matter on television, have expressed a view one way or another. So far, there has been a deafening silence.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West made a good deal of the discussion on the Frost Programme, in which the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) wrongly said that these elections would take place on the same day in 1967. The hon. Member was not present during the debate on Second Reading. I do not blame him for that. I am sure that he was very well occupied in Parliamentary activities somewhere else. So he did not have the advantage of hearing what the Home Secretary told the House of Commons about the arrangements for 1967.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he can have read the Home Secretary's speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said that he did on television."] I do not think that he can have read that speech as carefully as he maintained on television, because there is no doubt that the Home Secretary made himself absolutely clear, and he had to remind the right hon. Member for Enfield, West this afternoon of the words —the hon. Member for Bermondsey is blushing—[Laughter.]—that he used on Second Reading, which left the matter in no conceivable doubt.
I can only say that the Chairman of the London Boroughs Association, who wrote the letter to The Times and the B.B.C. reporter who, according to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, got the matter entirely wrong in the news


the following day, obviously do not pay very much attention to what is said in the House. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West can build the great edifice he is attempting to construct on the basis of one or two misunderstandings by these individuals.
Another statement which has been repeated several times from this side of the House during the debate is that the London Government Act, 1963, was based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That is entirely fallacious. Hon. Members were resting their case on, I think, paragraph 156 of the Royal Commission's Report, where the Commission said that there was much to be said for having the G.L.C. and the borough elections simultaneously, but there was no attempt by the Royal Commission to substantiate that; it just said that as a fact.
There is a number of respects in which the London Government Act, 1963 differed very markedly from the Royal Commission's Report. The Royal Commission recommended that there should be two-tier education in Greater London; it recommended smaller boroughs and many more of them; and it recommended that boroughs should be larger at the centre than at the periphery, whereas some of the larger boroughs, like Croydon and the London borough of Bromley, are on the outer edge, directly contrary to the advice given by the Royal Commission. We also have the Inner London Education Authority, which was devised during the passage of the Act through Parliament, and of which no mention was made in the Royal Commission's Report.
Therefore, it is not a very good argument for hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to say that the Royal Commission did not recommend the separation of the G.L.C. elections from those of the boroughs, and that therefore it should not be done. My own opinion is that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who said that the separation is in the interests of the electors, is perfectly right, although he did not give the correct reason, which is that if one has elections either coming very close together or simultaneously, which are the only two other possibili-

ties besides having them a year apart, it is extremely difficult—one knows this from experience—trying to explain to electors the separate issues involved in the two separate elections.
One must try to explain to them, as we did in 1964, the responsibilities of the Greater London Council and explain separately the responsibilities of the London boroughs. One can have extremely long conversations trying to sort out this matter on the doorstep when canvassing, and it is a large problem for the average elector to cope with one set of elections at a time, quite apart from the complication of counting. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central suggested, that complication can be solved if it is vitally necessary to do so, as it is in the United States, where one votes for many different offices at once. The conclusive argument is really that the electors are confused if they have to vote for two authorities with quite different responsibilities that overlap in no way, either at simultaneous elections or elections within a month of another another.
5.45 p.m.
In passing, I wish to mention the argument that the town clerks are trying to make life easier for themselves. I think that that is the implication of what has been said both on Second Reading and today. What the Home Secretary quoted the town clerks as saying was that they were not concerned so much with themselves as with a number of other difficulties which, the Home Secretary said, included the provision of equipment and staff, complications in postal voting and the greater risk that mistakes could be made. He said that they concluded that:
while these difficulties might not be insuperable, the burden that would be placed on returning officers would be very heavy and the resulting procedure might not be very satisfactory, either to candidates or to the electorate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 234.]
We are considering not only the returning officers but the whole of their staff engaged in the very important operations of counting the postal votes, of physically seeing to the county, and many other matters which have to be dealt with at the time of elections.

Sir Douglas Glover: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. If he had been


successful in getting his two new Clauses in the Bill the job of the returning officers would be far more complicated than under the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I had hoped to have a chance of debating those two new Clauses, but I am sure that the Chair would not allow me to do so since they were not selected and I shall not be tempted by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), to follow him in that intervention, much as I should like to do so.

Captain W. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulties of counting postal votes. Can he say what number of postal votes he gets in Orpington? Does he think that it is a considerable number? In my area it is practically nil.

Mr. Lubbock: We are very keen on elections in my constituency. We have the second highest poll in the country. Only Cornwall, North exceeded the percentage poll at the last General Election, and I think that we had something like 3,000 postal votes——

Mr. Frederic Harris: This is about local elections.

Mr. Lubbock: Similarly, in local elections we tend to get very much higher polls than in Greater London as a whole. For example, in the recent by-elections in the Farnborough ward in my constituency the poll was just over 46 per cent., as compared with the figure for 1964 of all the boroughs in the Greater London area of only 35·7per cent. Therefore, there is a greater degree of electoral interest in my constituency and probably in the London borough of Bromley generally than in Greater London as a whole.

Captain W. Elliot: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite understood me. I asked him what number of postal votes he got in the local elections.

Mr. Lubbock: I would have to have notice of that question, but I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and give him that information.
It would be very useful if a little more information could be given to the Committee when the debate is wound up about the difficulties which the Home Secretary mentioned on Second Reading. I am convinced that the town clerks were not

just trying to make life easier for themselves as individuals, but were concerned with the whole staff in the local authorities who must operate these very complex arrangements. Even in a single election a great deal of overtime is involved and one is very grateful to the staff of local authorities who are prepared to undertake that work.
The town clerks wrote to the Home Secretary spontaneously, and that is the answer to one question put by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. The Home Secretary then got in touch with the Greater London Council, which considered that the borough elections should be deferred, and after that he sought the advice of the London boroughs as a whole and the majority was in favour of the deferment. I cannot understand why after all this time, when the views of all these experts—the Home Office, the town clerks, the Greater London Council and the London boroughs—have been received, the Conservative Party suddenly takes it into its head to make a big political issue of this matter.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is it fully in accord with Liberal principles that, whatever the difficulties involved, after councillors have been elected for three years the Executive may unilaterally extend their term of office for one year? Is that the new Liberal principle?

Mr. Lubbock: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, a change of fundamental importance having been made in the local government of Greater London —I did not agree with it at the time, and I voted against the Third Reading—certain consequences have ensued which were not apparent to either side of the House at the time. This is one of them. The hon. Gentleman will recall—at least I hope he will, even though he does not represent a constituency in the neighbourhood of Greater London—that when the change was made in 1963 county councillors in the present outer metropolitan areas who were then serving on the authorities of Kent, Surrey and so forth had their terms of office prolonged by one year. I remember no objection being made to that at the time. It was part of the necessary consequences of the rearrangement of local government in Greater London.
After the Act has been on the Statute Book for some time, we discover consequences which were not expected when the Bill was passing through the House, and this is the reason for the change now. Although, in general, there should not be any unilateral alteration by the Government of the day of arrangements previously made for the holding of elections, I think that if one is dealing with the consequences of a most important piece of legislation such as the London Government Act, 1963, the Executive must be allowed that right.
I cannot for a moment foresee the kind of consequences which some hon. Members have painted in lurid colours today, suggesting that the Government of the day could defer a General Election. This is so absurd that one need not consider that part of the argument at all. If any hon. Member really thinks that such consequences might ensue, he ought to remember that no Government could possibly get away with it because of the weight of public opinion which would be brought to bear against them. As I said earlier, in this case we know that the electors of Greater London have no strong feelings on the matter at all.
I was about to come to a conclusion, and I was asking why, after the representations made to the Government by the London boroughs and after the matter has been on record since before the Summer Recess—it came in a Written Answer to a Question which I put to the Home Secretary—the Conservative Party should suddenly take it into its head to make a political issue of it. The only possible conclusion I can come to is that the Conservatives, seeing the Greater London Council elections coming in May next year, have decided to stir the pot. They were given instructions at their Blackpool conference this year to vote against the Government on every possible issue, irrespective of whether opposition to the Measure before the House had any merit whatsoever. This is why we are to be kept here late tonight, and this is why the Conservatives have decided to oppose the Bill line by line.

Mr. Frederic Harris: With respect, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is very naïve in his approach to this question. He sees no danger in

the proposition at all. Those of us —I know that he was among them—who listened to and took part in the Second Reading debate and who have listened to the whole discussion so far today cannot deny that there is a strong opinion that the Labour Party as the Government of the day are most anxious to delay the borough elections because of the political consequences of those elections when they come. There can be little doubt about that. If there is doubt in anyone's mind, we have practical proof of the present situation in Croydon. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) in his place, because what I am about to say will, I am sure, encourage him no end.
We are having much controversy in Croydon on the subject of education, a state of affairs not uncommon in the rest of Greater London. Public debate has been going on and there have been a number of public meetings. A Minister was purported to have said that the Government's attitude was that, if necessary, comprehensive education would be made compulsory in due course if a great progressive education authority like Croydon did not toe the line when the time came. The hon. Member for Croydon, South will recall the meetings which have been hotted up for this purpose in order to try to test the views of the public.
A few weeks back, we had two by-elections in Croydon, one in East ward and one in Central ward, at which the anti-Government, anti-Socialist vote was completely overwhelming. The poll was deplorably low because the Labour Party refrained from taking a really active part, but this was the result none the less. However, they were traditionally anti-Government and anti-Socialist wards. Then, last Thursday week, we had a much more interesting result, a result which gave an indication of what the Government would be up against if the people of Greater London had an opportunity soon to cast their votes. This came in the traditionally Labour ward of Waddon, which, by strange coincidence, is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, South. The result was an overwhelming victory for the Conservative Party, which absolutely knocked the Labour Party and thereby the Government's policies for six.
I could not make up my mind whether this was a vote just completely against the Government of the day, partly because of the education problem and the suggestion of compulsion, or whether it was the result of sheer opposition to the activities of the hon. Member for Croydon, South. I have come round to the feeling that it is a bit of each, though I rather think that the bias leans against the hon. Member for Croydon, South. That part of his constituency took the obvious opportunity open to it to tell him frankly that it would wish to see him soon disappear from the political scene. That is my feeling on the matter. I may be right or wrong. Certainly, whatever else may come out of this debate, it is definitely not in the interests of the Government of the day to have to put themselves seriously to the test at least in the Greater London borough elections, and they are only too pleased to postpone them for another year.
I said on Second Reading that this Bill is a mockery of democracy. I thought it a sound phrase at the time, and I repeat it now. When the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) tells us that it is all for the convenience of the electors, this is sheer hypocrisy. I have great respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, but if he, an intelligent man, believes that, all I can say is that it is a very poor show.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman. What the hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to say is that he believes in democracy and freedom for the electors to have an opportunity to express their voice. He wants one man one vote, but at the time when he thinks people ought to have it.

Mr. Harris: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it in such devastating language. He has put it far more powerfully than I could.
Let there be no doubts or queries on this matter at all. Whatever the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) had in mind at any time—I respect him tremendously and I accept what he personally says—I cannot believe that he is busting keen to see borough elections next April in Greater London. I am sure

that he is very happy in the circumstances to leave them for another year and not to face a public test. What happened in Waddon might well happen everywhere else. It was a real test with an outstanding result. I admit that the people of Waddon are politically very unfortunate in their Member of Parliament, but they demonstrated in a very definite way last Thursday week what their view was.
If the test were put on a Greater London basis, there would be a devastating vote against the Government of the day, even on education alone. People do not want their education steam-rollered. But this is what they are being told. A Minister came to Croydon and is purported to have given this indication, and there was no real doubt about it. There were some queries later on at the Dispatch Box, but there was no serious doubt at the time. There was a headline right across the Daily Express the next morning. Nobody made much about it, except my own Front bench raised queries on it. We were told this would be compulsory, if necessary, and the public do not want that sort of thing. I can assure hon. Members that this is an actual fact. I feel the answer to it will be in the greater London elections results of next year. When those elections take place I have no doubt that the Government will receive the answer. It will be the same answer it would have had had we been propertly entitled to hold the borough elections in April next. In the meantime, this gerrymandering, this playing about with elections, as has been done in this case, will go hard against the Government, as indeed, it certainly should.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Worsley: I hesitated to rise because I thought the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) would address the Chamber. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do so, because I have heard nothing more depressing this afternoon than the silence of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The depression is from the hon. Gentleman's benches.

Mr. Worsley: That is what I think is a tu quoque. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity in a moment to relieve the tedium of the debate by his contribution, and I hope that he will take it.
This is an important matter. It is wrong that hon. Gentlemen opposite should not contribute to the debate. This is an important matter, principally for the reason that the whole of the Bill—and this is the nub of the Amendment which we are now discussing—has been put over on grounds which are misleading. One of the grounds for the Bill—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) illustrated this point in some of the quotations he made in his opening speech on the Amendment —is that it is undesirable, for reasons which are not frequently explained in detail, to have elections either on the same day or in the same year.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman)—we had his valued contribution earlier, and we were very glad indeed to have him join our debate—said that it was for the convenience of the electors. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join our debate. I will finish my speech and will listen with great pleasure to the hon. Gentleman subsequently.
The first thing which has been indicated is that there is a difficulty for electors in voting on the same day. I should like to express my own personal view that this is not, in itself, a valid point. I cannot understand why the electors of North America should find it easy to vote in this way, and we are told that the electors of Greater London would apparently find it difficult. I do not understand this. I do not think that argument has been sufficiently put forward.
Secondly, it has been suggested that there is some difficulty for electors in voting at intervals of something like five or six weeks. The hon. and learned Gentleman wept tears for the difficulties of electors in doing this. His tears were metaphorical. Indeed, if I may say so, they were crocodile tears. He shed crocodile tears on the difficulties which electors would face in voting for two elections, with an interval of five to six weeks between the two elections.
I should like to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is the case in all the counties of England. I hope that he will not say to the Committee that the electors of Greater London are less

intelligent than are the county electors in the rest of England. I do not think that he can be suggesting this. In point of fact, this could work perfectly well. I merely indicate the point. My own feeling would be for a single electoral date. I believe that that would be the best answer, and it is one that is used very successfully, even for presidential and congressional elections, in the United States.
However, I will not pursue that point, because it is not the essential point before the Committee. I can say—and I am sure that I have the concurrence of my hon. and right hon. Friends—that were this simply the issue, we would be willing to support a Government Bill which simply changed the present system so that elections took place in different years. My own personal predisposition is the other way. It has been made quite clear by a lot of people that they would like to have elections in different years. The non-sequitur in all this is that the Government should try to put it over that it follows from this that we ought to have a Bill of this kind; that it follows that (a) elections should be held in different years and that (b) therefore, they should not take place next year.
This is a total and absolute non-sequitur. It does not follow, and I could point to two alternative ways in which this could be avoided.
Next year we could very well have, as the counties always have, two elections separated by a month or so. Nobody has seriously suggested that this would be difficult. The town clerk's report, to which reference has been made so frequently, does not cover this point. The town clerk's report is solely on the question of elections being held on a single day. I think that the Under Secretary will confirm that in the town clerk's report the convenience issue is something that does not apply to next year's election.
The hon. Gentleman nods. I am glad to have his concurrence. There is no argument over convenience or administrative matters concerning next year's election. We have, therefore, the very simple proposition. To avoid elections on the same day, which will not happen, in any case, before 1970, we have two very simple methods of achieving this. We could have the elections next year, and


elect candidates for either two years or four years.
I can tell the Government Front bench that if they had come to the Committee with a proposition on those terms, they would have had the support of my right hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Weitzman: Rubbish. Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that if that had been done the Opposition would have found a political reason for opposing it? They are only opposing it now from the point of view of political expediency.

Mr. Worsley: The hon. and learned Gentleman should not judge others by himself.
It is simply not a fair proposition that the Government should come to the Committee with Ito precedent which holds water and then for the hon. and learned Gentleman to turn to the Opposition, when they oppose this Measure on strictly democratic grounds, and say that they are doing so as a matter of expediency. That will not do, and the hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that it will not do. Had the Government come to the Committee and said that in view of the discussions which had gone on they felt the original idea of elections on a single day was a bad one, there could have been a non-controversial Bill, sailing perhaps into the serene waters of a Second Reading Committee.
The Government could still have a non-controversial Bill, and that would be a happier augury for the future of local government in London. If the Government force through this Measure—and it will have to be forced through, because we feel passionately about it—there will be left a legacy of a sense of gerrymandering and of fixed elections that will last for a very long time.
I therefore seriously ask the Government to consider accepting one or other of the Amendments. I am prepared to support either, though my preference is for that moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. Would it not be a happy augury for a system of local government in London that is now accepted by all parties? There is no wish to dismantle the system, It would, therefore, be a good thing were the Government to tell the Committee, "We have listened to the arguments and realise that,

to get the advantage we seek, it would be worth our accepting the proposition that for 1967 only there should be two elections and that, subsequently, the elections should be held in different years".
The Government are seeking to do something without precedent. The precedent indicated from the opposite benches throughout has been the original London Government Act, which we seek to amend, but there is one perfectly enormous and outstanding difference. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—who has now left the Chamber—said that the changes then made were the necessary consequences of the reform that was being made. In saying that, he hit on the nub of the matter. Those changes were a necessary consequence. I know that the change itself was disputed, but no one would dispute the fact that the alterations made in the electoral timing were a necessary consequence. The point about this present change is that it is in no way a necessary consequence either of the original Act or, more importantly, of the Government's desire to have elections in separate years.
The Government should, therefore, realise that there is no necessity to force through this Bill to get the result they seek. I beg them to accept one or other of these Amendments in the interests of agreement on democratic procedure and, above all, on the ground that electoral changes like this should only be made because of strict necessity. There is no ncessity in this case—it is a non sequitur —so I beg the Government to accept one or other of the Amendments.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: I was not at all surprised by the somewhat unpleasant and personal remarks made by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederic Harris) about the Croydon Labour Party or myself. The truth is that the Conservative Party and the hon. Member in question have not been able to get over their defeat in the General Election, and in Croydon there is still a great feeling of bitterness among members of the Conservative Leadership because they were beaten in one constituency in that election—

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman please take it from me that


I was not the slightest bit offensive towards the Labour Party in Croydon—I count so many of its members among my personal friends—but that I was putting a factual point about what happened by way of condemnation of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Winnick: That sort of excuse wears rather thin. There is all the difference in the world between having personal friends and political opponents. The political leadership in Croydon has deeply resented the result of the General Election. If I may say so—and it is only right and proper that I should—the hon. Member's majority has slipped at each successive election, and he may feel frightened and think it necessary to make personal attacks, which I deplore.
It is perfectly true that in the recent elections in the London borough of Croydon the percentage vote was rather low. In the East ward and in the Central ward, the poll was very low indeed, but one could use that fact locally to argue that there was not a great deal of interest either way in the battle over comprehensive education. The hon. Member has argued that the low poll showed that not many people were interested in the Labour Party's arguments, but one could also say that it did not seem to show that a great number of people voted for the Croydon Council's defence of the 11-plus. That argument can go both ways. There was a low vote in Waddon.
With the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, I always deplore low polls. I always wish that people would take the opportunity at General Elections and in local elections to exercise their democratic rights. In the recent elections, very few people turned up to vote——

Sir S. McAdden: The hon. Member says that he is in favour of the electorate exercising its rights; and of as many people as possible voting. May I therefore take it that he is opposing the Government's present proposal to take away that right next year?

Mr. Winnick: The point was quite clear. I was expressing the wish that people would exercise their democratic right in elections. Next year, the people in the London Boroughs will have the opportunity to vote in the Greater London Council elections, and I hope that as

many people as possible, of all political shades or no political views, will exercise their voting rights. I am keen on democracy in theory and in practice.
I look upon the argument about whether local elections should be held next year or in 1968 as a sort of Opposition political gimmick. It could be described as opposition for the sake of opposition. They know that there is no great argument either way. Obviously, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said, they got their marching orders at the Blackpool Conservative conference to obstruct and oppose as much as possible in the coming Parliamentary days.
If it is to be said of us that we want to delay the local elections in the boorughs because we may lose, we might use the opposite argument that the Conservatives are very keen to have elections next year because they believe they will win. It is not a question of winning or losing but of common sense. I would rather have the G.L.C. election in one year with the borough elections to follow in a different year. I am not in favour of the two elections being held in the same year. I did not like the original arrangement in 1964, so I am not at all unhappy about what the Government now suggest.
Judging by what hon. Members opposite say, one would imagine that we were all receiving large numbers of letters deploring the delay in the borough elections. They may have received a large number of letters on the subject, but I have not. I am receiving letters on abortion reform, on Vietnam, on pirate radio and on a number of constituency problems, but not one letter have I received on the subject of the borough elections—not even from the Conservative organisers in my constituency. Perhaps they should have written to say what a wicked Socialist plot it was to delay the elections, but not a word have I heard from them. I would not be surprised of course if, following my present remarks, I were to receive a letter or two in the next week, but that would be understandable. I always answer, of course, every letter from my constituency. When, as I do sometimes, I receive letters from other parts of the borough, as well as informing the hon. Member concerned, I also reply to the writer of the letter. That is only right and proper.
But, leaving aside the "gimmicks" of their Opposition and their opposition for its own sake, I want to put two points. If we are to deal with this matter seriously, it is deplorable that so few people bother to vote not only in local by-elections for borough councils but also in the main local elections. I want to see far greater interest taken in local elections. I should like people to say, "This affects local education and welfare matters, and it is only right and proper that I should spend five or ten minutes recording my vote." It may be said, "That is all very well, but how do we get this interest in local government?" I suggest that those boroughs—and Croydon is one of them—which do not open up committee meetings to the Press should change their ways.
It is notable that many boroughs are now willing not only to have the Press at their council meetings but at the meetings of their major committees. I am afraid that Croydon does not do this, but I hope that in time it will be willing to reconsider this. It may be argued that this will not work very well, but I have been a member of the Brent and Willesden Borough Councils where the Press is admitted to meetings of the major committees and the arrangements work well. I hope that in Croydon, in order to get the sort: of interest that I and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West would like to see, the Council will consider opening its major committees to the local Press and creating the sort of interest we would like to see.
My other proposal which relates to Croydon is the holding of civic forums. Nowadays, people say that local government is rather remote, that it does not have a great deal of interest for the ordinary person. That is why I suggest, that, in Croydon as well as in other places, the local councillors should consider holding a civic forum where councillors and leaders of various committees could put their points of view and the ordinary persons could put theirs at the microphone for three or five minutes.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Lever): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to bring his remarks into relation with the Amendment. I would be grateful if he would now do so.

Mr. Winnick: With pleasure, Mr. Lever. I was trying to show the interest I take in trying to get people to the polls and was putting forward one or two proposals for increasing interest among the local government electors. It does not make a great deal of difference when the local elections are to be held, either next year or the year after. I support the Government on this issue and will do so in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Hunt: Would the hon. Gentleman speculate on the kind of speech he would have made if this Bill had been brought in by a Conservative Government?

Mr. Winnick: That is a fair question, and the answer is simple. I would make the same kind of speech. If I believe that elections should be held in different years, there would be no reason for me to change my party line if we were in Opposition. The hon. Gentleman laughs, but he must be a very cynical person.
I am pleased to have intervened in the debate, even if I was provoked to some extent by hon. Members opposite. The Bill is sensible and logical. The Opposition are opposing it only for the sake of opposition and as a political gimmick to obstruct Government business. I deplore the way they are carrying on and that apparently they are going to hold up business all night to put their views.

Mr. Anthony berry: For a short time I thought that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) was starting on a point with which I could agree, but before he could develop it, Mr. Lever, you correctly ruled him out of order, so I cannot comment.
For the hon. Gentleman to talk about ways of increasing interest in local government elections in one breath and then, in the next, to support this Bill to deprive people of a chance to vote in local elections means that he is at cross-purposes with himself. However, we welcome his intervention, because not many hon. Members opposite have spoken today or on Second reading.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman says he agrees with my suggestions. Does he believe that major committees of councils should be open to the Press? We do not have that situation in Croydon. Is he in favour of civic forums being organised?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This must be consigned to the realms of those curiosities which must be gratified on another occasion.

Mr. Berry: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Lever, and I hope that the hon. Member for Croydon, South will accept that reason for my not following him.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is back, because both he and the hon. Member for Croydon, South suggested that neither of them had had letters on this subject. I am provoked into reading out one letter to show that there are bodies of people and individuals among our constituents who are seriously concerned and have indicated as much to their hon. Members. This is a letter from the general secretary of the Federation of Ratepayers and Civil Associations of the London borough of Enfield. [Laughter.] Before hon. Members laugh too much, I would point out that, until the last elections, my constituency was the last borough in London with an independent majority, although it had a large Conservative minority. We still have independent people who call themselves independent and vote independent.
The letter, dated 8th August, said:
Three months ago, I wrote to you on behalf of the Federation, enclosing a resolution, strongly opposing the suggested postponement of the next elections to the London Borough councils.
I am now informed by the Home Office that legislation to this purpose is being introduced this autumn. May I appeal to you on behalf of a large body of opinion within this borough to oppose this Bill.
It seems to us most undemocratic to prolong the term of office of any elected authority beyond that for which they were elected and quite incredible that a Government with a very full legislative programme and facing serious economic difficulties, should make time for such an unnecessary and controversial Bill.

Mr. Perry: Is that an invitation to the ratepayers of Southgate to get rid of the Independents and Conservatives in Southgate?

Mr. Berry: I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. There are now no Independents on the council. There were until the last election. The council has a Labour majority. I will refer to that in a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think that hon. Members could

have listened to my right hon. Friend if they still believe that we have a Conservative majority in that part of London.
Basically, what we are discussing is whether the local elections in London should be held on the same day either next year or in four years' time. If our Amendment is accepted, those elected will have a period of office in accordance with that for which they were elected. It is wrong that people elected for a given period should be voted an extra period in office by Parliament.

Mr. Lubbock: Did the hon. Gentleman make these views known at the time when Surrey and Kent County Councils were having their periods of office prolonged by the London Government Act, 1963?

Mr. Berry: I was not in this House at the time. I do not remember the Liberal candidate in Southgate, at the last General Election, who went down from second to third place, taking any view or saying anything in his election address about it, or calling for local elections in any particular year.
The Home Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Bill, claimed that, if elections followed each other closely, this caused lack of interest. I must quote him the figures which I also quoted on Second Reading. These show that, over the last four general elections in my constituency, the percentage of the vote has gone slightly down each time from the peak, which was in 1955—the year when the General Election came at the end of May and was the third election within about two months. I suggest, therefore, that far from the figures showing less interest when elections follow closely, very much the reverse is the case and people are becoming used to elections or more interested in them and in what is happening and, therefore, more of them try to vote.
6.30 p.m.
The Home Secretary said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was in favour of changes. Considering that we have a Labour majority which was elected by a majority of two, 31 against 29, it is not at all surprising that those councillors wish to remain in office an extra year. The right hon. Gentleman said that my


right hon. Friend's purpose was less than benign and was less representative of his borough. That is nonsense.
Reference has been made to the town clerks. While we are agreed that great attention must be paid to their views—because they are uniquely qualified to advise on all matters pertaining to elections—surely theirs is not the final say. The right hon. Lady the Minister of State, who wound up the debate on Second Reading, said that if elections took place on the same day a breakdown would occur. Nothing which was said in the report of the town clerks or by the working party bears out that statement.
The Home Secretary suggested that a reasonable case could be made either way. In this context he was referring to the difficulty of electors having a multiple choice or single choice at elections. Whether or not it is a good thing for voters to vote at elections only a month apart—and I think that it is wrong—the only point at issue now is that the elections fixed for next year should take place. I have no strong views about whether, if they are deferred, they should be deferred for two years or four years. Probably there is more to be said for a two-year period and then for a three-year interval after that.
I turn now to the election of aldermen, which is covered by one of the group of Amendments.

Miss Bacon: That is out of order.

Mr. Berry: In Enfield——

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment dealing with aldermen emerges later on the Notice Paper. It is not one of those which is being discussed in the group of Amendments at present before the Committee.

Mr. Berry: Is not Amendment No. 7 under discussion with the others in this group, Mr. Lever?

The Temporary Chairman: I must apologise to the hon. Member. The group of Amendments includes No. 7, which is, therefore, well within order. I beg the hon. Member's pardon.

Mr. Berry: Thank you, Mr. Lever. I appreciate that Amendment No. 31, which appears in my name, is not in

cluded, but I hope that my remarks will be in order on Amendment No. 7.
One of my reasons for feeling strongly about this is, in particular, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West and I both represent part of the borough in which a Labour majority was elected by 31 votes to 29 and that after those elections all 10 aldermen were chosen by the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Orpington, who spoke after me on Second Reading, emphasised this. Surely, it is completely contrary to the whole principle of aldermen in local government. I believe that it goes against the principles laid down by the great political leaders of the immediate past.
I would like to refer to the speech made by Lord Attlee in another place on the earlier Bill. This is what he said:
The fact is that the general idea of aldermen, giving the possibility of bringing in people of experience, was very good, but it has been abused. It is rather like the university seats "—
if I were to follow that point I should be 20 years out of order, so I will not pursue it, much as I would like to—
… which were used for people who were rejected by public vote. That is an objection which holds today against the aldermanic bench".
Of the 10 aldermen who were elected by the Southgate Labour councillors 18 months ago, eight had been rejected by the electors of the Borough of Enfield only a few weeks earlier.
The late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who was closely connected with local government in London, said this of the aldermanic system:
I agree with…Lord Attlee that it ought not to be used primarily for the purpose of making a member of the council of a defeated candidate.… I think the right thing is, if you can do it, to share the aldermen between the parties on the basis of the proportions of elected councillors, and that each party should choose whom they like in whatever way they like.…What I do not like is when, out of sheer hatred of the other side, the majority party seizes all the aldermen, which they do not need to do to make the machine work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th May, 1963; Vol. 249, c. 951–4.]

Sir Edward Brown: Surely the interpretation of the Local Government Act, 1933, is that there shall be three councillors for a ward and that for those three councillors there shall be one alderman. What is happening now, particularly


in London, is that if three Conservative councillors are elected for a ward where the Socialist Party has a majority on the council, it appoints a Labour alderman. The spirit of the Act was that there should be one Socialist alderman for three Labour seats and one Conservative alderman for three Conservative seats.

Mr. Berry: I appreciate the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown), who speaks with close knowledge of the area and of the subject. What he says is quite right.
In the debates on the Bill, I suffer under the advantage of inevitably having to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, who is likely to deal with all the local points which are of relevance. My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier that there would be a chance later of referring to education, and I certainly intend to use it. On this occasion, however, I hope that the Minister of State will forgive me if on this occasion I do not allow her the opportunity, which she had on Second Reading, of speaking about comprehensive schools.
Talking of the Government Front Bench, I would still like to know the views on the Bill and on the Amendments of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs, and his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie), Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are the other two Members in the borough which I represent and whose views on the subject have still to be made known. I suggested earlier that all local controversial matters in the area which cut across party lines should be postponed until after it was decided whether the election should be held as arranged. I expected that remark to bring forth comment, but as yet there is dismal, golden silence.
In her closing speech on Second Reading, the Minister of State, Home Office said:
I am quite sure that at the elections in 1967 or 1968 the people of London will do what they did in 1964."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 366.]
One interpretation of the right hon. Lady's remarks, I suppose, is that three years afterwards they will find once again that their elections have been put off.

Under the present Government, that would not surprise me at all.
The hon. Member for Orpington has referred to public opinion in the event of General Elections ever having to be postponed. I suggest that the postponement of these local borough elections is just as vital a matter and will be just as strongly felt by the people of London and that their present feelings, which they will hold even more strongly if the Bill is passed, will be expressed in the ballot box in no uncertain way next April in favour of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Brian Walden: The first thing I want to do is to apologise to the Committee for speaking in this debate at all, because I am a Birmingham and not a London Member, although I have a residence in London. I want, secondly, to apologise to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench who are, no doubt, alarmed that I shall consume a great deal of time. I assure them that I shall be very brief.
It is incredible that a day of the time of the House of Commons should be wasted by the sort of thing which we are discussing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In spite of the cheers of hon. Members opposite, the blame for the discussion and for what economists call the future projections which I have heard about an all-night sitting rests on hon. Members opposite.
Everybody in the Committee and outside knows what the argument is about. It is not about the great enthusiasm for democracy which at a very late stage the Conservative Party has discovered. This afternoon, when I heard the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) I could scarcely believe that he was the chairman of a party which was advised in the public periodicals for about three years to hold an election and which waited until the last possible moment. Enthusiasm to have a mandate fresh from the people was then terribly lacking. The argument is about votes. That is what the argument is about.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Mr. Nicholas Scott (Paddington, South) rose——

Mr. Walden: I will not give way.
The Conservative Party, which is always very badly advised psephologically, has decided that if an election is held in


1967, it will win more seats than if an election is held in 1968. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they are wrong and that they are operating against their own best interests. If they will make a careful study of previous local election results in both London and elsewhere during the lifetimes of Labour Governments and average them out with the present results of the opinion polls, they will see that it is much in their best interests for the elections to be held in 1968, when they will win more seats than they will if the elections are held in 1967.
However, it may be that I am doing hon. Members opposite a terrible injustice and that none of this discussion has anything to do with seats or votes, difficult though that might be to believe after some of the speeches which I have heard this afternoon. If they are wholly above such sordid considerations, then, of course, they will continue to press to have the elections in 1967. But before they insist too much on our going to the polls in London at that time, I advise hon. Members opposite to check the advice which they have received, because they will find that they will serve their best interests by having the elections in 1968 and not 1967.
Hon. Members opposite will also serve the best interests of the Committee by withdrawing the Amendment, because we could end this discussion and get on with something which matters and serve the best interests of everyone who wants to take part in a debate tomorrow on a subject which does matter. If they take my advice, hon. Members opposite can wind up this whole miserable business and agree that the Government are making an administrative change, identically the kind of change which right hon. Gentlemen opposite made three years ago, and they can then elevate the discussion well above the present level and serve their own interests best.
Should the Opposition be successful in the Division Lobbies tonight, which they will not be, they will discover that they will not make the gains which they expect this April. However, they will not be successful in the Lobbies. There will come a time when they will thank me for my excellent advice, although when they have had had a very good year in 1968, as they will, that will not

mean that when the next General Election comes they will do any better than last time. If they had studied local government election statistics, they would know what was in their best interests and they would stop this boring, pointless and tedious debate.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) has reduced the debate to its lowest possible level.

Mr. Walden: Mr. Walden rose——

Mr. Sharples: He has made it quite clear that the Government have introduced a Bill which is all about votes. We all know that and I think that the public knows that, but it took the hon. Member——

Mr. Walden: Mr. Walden rose——

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman did not give way and I shall not do so. It took the hon. Gentleman, and not his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to come out with the truth of what the Bill was about.
The Government have got themselves into the most appalling mess with the 1967 local elections in London. They have done so because they have not made out any case whatever for postponing the 1967 election to 1968. There may be a case—and I give the Government this—for an alteration in the 1970 election, but no one on the Government Front Bench, or anyone else, has made out any case for a postponement of the 1967 election.
On Second Reading, there was a great deal of discussion about the misconceptions and difficulties which had arisen, and they were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) this afternoon. There was the issue of whether people were considering whether the elections should be postponed on the basis of whether the 1967 elections were to take place on the same day. On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman devoted a great deal of time to what had been said about town clerks. He said that a committee of a group of town clerks had been set up to consider the working of the 1963 Act as it applied to the London local elections.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
We have not yet had any combined elections under the 1963 Act, but—as I have


endeavoured to explain—unless there is amending legislation we are bound to have them in due course.
There was no reference to the 1967 election. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
With this prospect in view, a working party of town clerks of London boroughs has been considering the question of the practicability of combined elections".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 233.]
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make it clear that there was no question of combined elections in 1967, although he failed to convince even his hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that that was the case, because many of those who had advised him that a Bill of this kind should be introduced were under the impression—Mr. Pritchard for one and the hon. Member for Bermondsey for another—that all the Bill was to do was to remove the possibility of simultaneous elections in 1967 and subsequent years.
That is by no means the point. It is most important that before we proceed further in discussing the Bill, the Committee should know exactly what the town clerks were asked to recommend and what they recommended. I hope that before long we shall have the Answer to the Question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, has tabled on this matter. Winding up the debate on Second Reading, the right hon. Lady equally made it clear that the town clerks said in their report that they had pointed to the breakdown which would occur if they had to have two elections in one day. That was the point. No evidence was introduced on Second Reading or at any other time to support an alteration of the 1967 elections. As the hon. Member for All Saints has quite clearly said, the alteration of the date of the 1967 election is entirely a matter of votes and of nothing else.
The Economist, which is often kind to the Home Secretary, hit the nail absolutely on the head on 19th November, in an article headed "Robber Roy"—and it is hard for a Home Secretary to be associated with the people whom he is endeavouring to keep inside—

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Not very successfully.

Mr. Sharples: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has seen these words:
Mr. Roy Jenkins is unwise to chaperone so dubious a measure as the London Government Bill. The effect of it will be to rob parents in the outer London boroughs of the right to choose new councils next year, and so the opportunity to strangle at birth some comprehensive school schemes which local authorities are trying to ram through against all protests.
This is what the Bill is about. This is the level at which it is being pushed through.
Later, the article stated:
…in the outer London boroughs, education is run by the individual borough councils and at least six of them (including two run by the Tories) are working on comprehensive schemes which have, rightly or wrongly, aroused a great deal of local opposition. Given another year, these schemes could be pushed past redemption. The parents whose children's schooling will be affected have the right to pass judgment on the date now laid down by law.
These borough councils have been in existence for about three years. Now is the time when the schemes which they initiated when they first came to office in connection with housing, education and other matters should be judged by the electorate.
My council in the London Borough of Sutton has produced a scheme for education. It was passed by the council on 24th November and now goes forward to the Minister for his comments and, I hope, approval. None the less, I believe that the electorate of Sutton should have the opportunity of expressing its views on a scheme of this kind before it is too late.
By accepting the Amendment, the Government would achieve the main purpose of having, in due course, elections at different times. There is no question of the elections being on the same date in 1967. Therefore, all the arguments of the town clerks concerning the 1967 elections are entirely irrelevant. The Government could remove all the political bitterness which the Bill arouses by accepting these Amendments, and I beg them, even at this late stage, to reconsider their position and to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) for bringing the debate


back to its proper perspective and underlining the matters which are at the root of the argument between the two parties.
What has clearly emerged from the debate is that it is conceded by all that if the Bill were not passed the elections in the spring of 1967 for the Greater London Council and the London boroughs would not take place on the same day. The Greater London Council election would take place on 13th April and the London borough elections would take place on 11th May. This is now clearly understood and accepted by all hon. Members.
This was not the case at the end of the Second Reading debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was kind enough to refer to my remarks on Second Reading, but he did me a little less than justice when, in his summary of the debate, he suggested that I joined in the confusion of some hon. Members opposite about the final position. I was at great pains in my speech then to draw attention to what the Home Secretary was doing. As a new Member, I thanked him for the lesson which he gave me in the art of sophistry.
On Second Reading, I said that the right hon. Gentleman
put forward as his main contention for bringing it"—
that is, the Bill—
forward the great confusion which was likely to arise if the G.L.C. elections and the borough elections were held on the same day.
This is why we had all this talk about the town clerk's report, about postal votes, and matters of that kind.
I went on to say:
We are not talking about the difficulties over postal votes because the elections are on the same day. We are talking about whether or not these elections should be in the same year. The moment we appreciate that that is the point at issue, all the arguments which have been constructed or put forward from the other side, with the exception of one…fall to the ground. The one argument which stands is the argument of sympathy towards our party workers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 276–7.]
Today, we have had another argument. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) advanced an argument of sympathy for the electors who will be greatly

inconvenienced by having to go to the polls twice in, say, a month and who would be so stupid as to be confused by the elections if they were held within a month of one another. This was the burden of the argument. I have heard in this Committee no greater insult to the electorate of London.
As has been said from this side of the Committee, we have had, and continue to have, elections throughout the counties within a month of the urban and rural district elections. This was the position in Middlesex up to the reorganisation of Greater London. Before the 1963 Act, the boroughs were elected as to one-third annually, and once every three years there was an election of the whole of the Middlesex County Council, so that once in every three years, within a few weeks of one another, there was a county council election and a borough election.
I am not aware that there was then any confusion in the minds of the electors. Indeed, inasmuch as they were kind enough to return me to both the borough council and county council I always consider that they are extremely discriminating, but I cannot say how discriminating they may be in the constituencies of hon. Members opposite. I have my doubts on that subject. Therefore, this argument will not wash.
Once that argument goes, there is nothing left to support the Bill. I deplore the speeches made by the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) and Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden). They said that all that this election is about is the voting. It is suggested that the Labour Party is putting forward the Bill because it believes that it will lose the London borough elections. It is suggested that we are opposing this Bill because we believe that we are likely to win those elections. I think that that argument does not do justice to either Party in this Chamber.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House, and, I suppose, the country, that if he thought that the issue of comprehensive schools was likely to bring votes to the Labour Party in 1967 he would still oppose the Bill? If he is, I do not believe him.

Mr. Rossi: I shall come to the point about comprehensive schools in a moment, because I believe that this is the true basis of the matter. That is a cynical argument, and it is one which will gain ground outside the House of Commons among people who regard politicians with a certain amount of cynicism. They will say that we are really squabbling about who will win the election in the spring if it is held then.
I regret the speeches to which I have just referred if they have given weight to this kind of thought. This is not the basis of the opposition on this side of the Committee. Our opposition is not based on who will win this election. It is based on whether or not the electorate should be denied the right to vote in 1967.

Mr. F. A. Gurden: Was not that point made clear by one of my hon. Friends who concluded his speech by saying that if the election was held next year, the Tories would come out far worse than the Labour Party? If that is the case, that exonerates this side of the Committee from the criticisms which have been made.

Mr. Rossi: I do not wish to speculate about who is likely to win or lose the election. I consider this to be completely irrelevant to the argument. What is relevant is whether or not the electorate should be denied an opportunity to vote, whatever its vote might ultimately be. It does not matter how the people vote. What matters is that they should vote on this matter of education, if on nothing else.
There are divided views in the Committee on comprehensive education. Supporters of comprehensive education are to be found on these benches, as well as on the benches opposite. As I said during my Second Reading speech, I concede the advantages of constructing comprehensive schools in certain localities, provided that they are purpose-built. I concede this at once, and I am not arguing whether or not a comprehensive system of education is good or bad, whether a scheme in a particular borough is good or bad. What I am saying is that the parents of the children whose future lives are to be affected by the schemes which are being introduced

should have the right to vote on them before they come into effect, because after that they no longer have any say in the matter.
The spring of 1967 is vital to the outer London boroughs whose schemes are now with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He will approve or modify them by July. Once that date has passed, the parents will have no say in the matter. But at this point of time the parents who are concerned know what schemes are going forward, and they should be able to go to the polling booths to give their views on them. They should be able to say, "Yes, I want this for my children", or, "No, I do not want this for my children."
I do not mind how they exercise their votes. What is important is that they should be able to exercise their right to vote. This is a fundamental democratic right, which the Bill is seeking to deny them. I deplore this Measure, not because of what might be the ultimate outcome of the elections, but because we are not allowing these parents to determine the future education of their children.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Maurice Foley): The hon. Gentleman will recall that during the G.L.C. elections comprehensive education and housing were the two dominant issues. He will recall, too, that there have been two General Elections in which comprehensive education was one of the major issues and that the electorate gave its views by returning a Labour majority both to the G.L.C. and to this House.

Mr. Rossi: In as much as the electorate has given its views, it may have done so on general principles, with which I suggest there may be a measure of agreement between the two sides of the Committee. What people have not had is an opportunity of voting on the particular scheme which affects the school at which their children are being educated.
This is the kernel of the matter. I am not surprised at the interventions and interjections by hon. Gentlemen opposite, nor by the fact that the Bill is being presented in this way, because in the infamous circular issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Science he spoke of consultations between teachers


and local authorities, but when dealing with parents he said that
they shall be authoritatively informed.
They will receive the diktat. What is meant by
they shall be authoritatively informed"?
It means that they will be told which type of education is good for their children, and now they are not to be allowed to vote and decide for themselves. This is why we on this side of the Committee are opposing the Bill.
We are arguing on behalf of the parents. I am the father of five children. I am very much concerned with this matter, and I know that many of my friends and neighbours, too, are concerned about it. We are anxious because we are not being given an opportunity for proper consultation. We do not like being authoritatively informed by the Secretary of State how our children shall be educated, and we resent it most bitterly when the opportunity for exercising our votes and the right to express our opinions is being snatched away from under our noses.
I should like hon. Gentlemen opposite, who talk in glib terms about democracy and democratic processes, to think seriously about this. Is this right? Is this fair? Is this proper? It is no wonder that publications such as the Economist hold up their hands in horror at what is being suggested, and rightly so.
This is something which must be brought home to the public, and I should like them to understand that this is the real issue here. The issue is not who is likely to win the election, or whether parents are likely to vote in favour of, or against, comprehensive education. The point here is that they should have the right to vote. It is this, and nothing else, and it is this for which we are fighting, and about which we are arguing.
I hope that this will get home, and that we will not be misled by sophistry of the kind that we had on Second Reading as to whether or not we are having elections on the same day, or having them a month apart. This is a smokescreen to cloud the issue, and to confuse the electorate, and I hope that if nothing else emerges from this debate, this point will clearly come out, and that it will be understood what the Labour Party is about in this Bill.
It has been suggested that we do not come to this debate with clear hands because we were guilty of gerrymandering in the 1963 Act. However, as has already been forcibly said much better than I could say it, that Act was based on an impartial Royal Commission's Report. In detail, there might have been departures from that Report—the right hon. Lady is smiling. Of course, one of the departures was the creation of the I.L.E.A., and at whose behest was I.L.E.A. retained? Certainly not the behest of Conservative hon. Members. We had a very clear-cut idea of what should be done about I.L.E.A. and I regret that the Cabinet of those days gave way to the importunings of those who said what should be done about it——

Mr. Richard: The reason that the I.L.E.A. was formed was because the parents of London took it upon themselves to agitate sufficiently to influence some of the constitutional purists now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Rossi: I do not accept that for a moment. It was a purely Left-wing, Labour Party, L.C.C. caucus agitation—that and nothing else.
We think that personal services should be operated at a local level and that is our answer to I.L.E.A. We departed from the Royal Commission's Report, not in a gerrymandering spirit but to give a concession. That is one instance. The other instance mentioned is that of Surrey. The Royal Commission suggested that parts of Surrey should be within the Greater London area. The Government of the day, in their wisdom, decided to give way to pressure and excluded Surrey. In whose favour did that operate? It operated in favour of the Labour Party. So far, they have departed from the recommendations of an impartial Royal Commission.
May I give another instance in which I was very much personally involved and in which the wounds received have not yet quite healed? This was a proposal of the Royal Commission that my borough, which is now my constituency, should have been amalgamated with Southgate and Wood Green. There was an independent inquiry and the Commissioner, in his wisdom, suggested another amalgamation


which, in my view and that of my colleagues who knew the locality, was disastrous both for local government—as the events have proved—and from a party political point of view.
I used every means which I thought available to me to have that decision changed. One of the channels which I thought open to me was through the Conservative Party machinery. I was given this blank answer, "A Minister cannot be influenced by party political considerations. You cannot put this forward." This is the extent to which the Conservative Party, a Conservative Minister, gerrymandered at the time of the London Government Act of 1963——

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Perry: The hon. Gentleman has referred to gerrymandering and to a Conservative Minister not giving way to him. In London, under pressure, he issued a circular that only single-barrelled names were to be used, but in the Tory boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea he linked those two names together, having denied that to every other borough in London.

Mr. Rossi: I must say that I am overwhelmed by the hon. Gentleman's point. It makes me look at the Minister of the day in an entirely new light.
I am satisfied, from my own experience, that, far from gerrymandering over the London Government Act, the Conservative Administration of that day leaned over backwards to show that they were not acting in any party political way, to the disadvantage of their own party. This is not merely the experience of my locality. This is something which members of the Conservative Party in various areas still feel extremely sore about. I discount the suggestions which have been made—in particular that of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).
I noticed that one of his points in support of the Bill was that Clause 2 states that ultimately the elections will be held on the "same day". His argument was that, therefore, this is as convenient a time as any to make the change. If it were not for the great pressure on Parliament at the moment and the great difficulty of finding time for matters of

this kind, were it not for the fact that this is a vital year for the parents in Greater London, I would agree with him. Certainly, if it is a bad thing to have the elections on the same day in 1970, at some time or other the change must be made and time must be found.
But this is not so, because we have seen the importance of this year, of spring 1967, not from an electoral point of view but from other points of view—the importance to the electors, the people concerned. We also know what pressure there is on Parliamentary time. In any case, in 1970—I make this point because I have not heard it mentioned yet in the debate—the situation would be somewhat different from what it is at the moment.
By 1970, the Greater London electoral areas will be divided up into the equivalent of the parliamentary constituencies. At the moment, Greater London councillors are elected on a borough basis, with three or four to a borough as the case may be. In 1970, they will be elected singly per constituency. Fewer names will, therefore, be put before the electorate. In those circumstances, one can argue that there will not be a great deal of confusion. Indeed, the Home Secretary said in the Second Reading debate that there was a balance between whether or not it is desirable to have these two elections on the same day. He thought that the arguments for and against balance themselves out.
I have taken up a great deal of the time of the Committee on this, but I hope that the kind of cynicism shown on the other side of the House about the objections from this side do not gain very much ground outside. It is simply not true. We are extremely and deeply concerned about the defranchise with which the electorate of Greater London are threatened, over their civil rights, in a vital year.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will realise the mistake which they are making. I believe that they were themselves confused over this question of "same day" or different days in the same authority and that this is how the problem came about. I am sure that if this confusion had not existed, the Bill would not have appeared before us. I hope that they will have the courage to say, "We have made a mistake with the Bill. We will withdraw it."

Miss Bacon: When the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) moved the Amendment, he introduced, as is usual in his speeches, an air of mystery. He inferred that something had been going on somewhere and that only he knew about it.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say about a decision of a special committee of the London Boroughs Association and about whether or not that a decision, which that committee had taken at a meeting in January, had been taken unanimously. It is significant that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke today he did not mention that subject—for several good reasons, which I will come to in a moment.
Today the right hon. Member for Enfield, West had another mystery. He spoke mysteriously about a report of town clerks and he alleged that the whole of the Bill was based on a misunderstanding. He inferred that we had said that in 1967 the elections would be held on the same day. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself he will see that we made it perfectly clear that we understood this point very well indeed. Parts of our speeches were devoted to the difficulties of holding the elections on the same day and, after all, the London Government Act made provision for that from 1970 onwards. My right hon. Friend and I also pointed out that in the coming year, 1967, we had readily admitted that they would not be held on the same day but with a few week's interval.
Today the right hon. Gentleman talked about a report from town clerks. He asked how the committee which had produced that report was set up, who was on it and whether their deliberations were devoted merely to the difficulties of holding the elections on the same day. The right hon. Gentleman had a Question down for Written Answer today, in which he asked my right hon. Friend
…when and by whom under his general authority a working party of town clerks of London boroughs was appointed to consider the question of elections under the London Government Act 1963; when and to whom it reported; which town clerks were members of the working party; and whether he will make copies of their report available to hon. Members.
The committee of town clerks was not set up by my right hon. Friend. It was

a working party of town clerks of London boroughs. This working party on local elections in London was set up by the Association of London Town Clerks. I have with me a list of the members who were on it, and while I will endeavour to see that the whole of the report is placed in the Library, there are difficulties involved in my giving the names of those who were on the committee. As members of an officers' association, the people on the working party were acting independently and not under instructions from their councils. London borough town clerks are returning officers for London borough and Greater London Council elections. I understand that, in view of their responsibility as returning officers, the members of the working party felt, after considering the matter, that they should report to the London Boroughs Association.
During this debate I have been in touch with the London town clerks and they tell me that they have not the slightest objection to the report being placed in the Library for the benefit of hon. Members, although they ask—and I feel, in the circumstances, that I should agree—that it would not be right to state the names of the town clerks who were on this special committee.
As I explained on Second Reading, the first representations received by the Home Office were from the Association of London Boroughs. With a letter dated 12th April from the London Boroughs Association, there was enclosed this working party's report from the town clerks. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the right hon. Member for Enfield, West and will convince him that it was not set up by us, that it was not set up by the London Boroughs Association but was a special committee set up by the town clerks themselves.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that explanation, which is extremely helpful. I agree that we can leave the names out of this, and I trust that she realises that I phrased my Question which appears on the Order Paper in that way for Parliamentary reasons, mainly, of course, to get it past the Table. As long as we can have the report, even without the names, that will be of great service to the Committee.

Miss Bacon: I have arranged for that to be done. In my speech on Second Reading, I made it perfectly clear—I did not wrap this up at all—that this report was devoted to the difficulties that would ensue if the elections were held on the same day. Indeed, I said:
It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, a report was enclosed from the town clerks of the London boroughs and, after all, the town clerks are those who must do the work in this.
I went on, after pointing out that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West had said that we were not here to protect the comfort of town clerks, to say:
That may be so, but the town clerks pointed to the breakdown that would occur if they had to have the two elections on one day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1965; Vol. 736, c. 362.]
I made it perfectly clear that the report of town clerks was devoted to the difficulties of having the elections on one day.

Mr. Scott: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the case of the town clerks would be met if she accepted the Amendment?

Miss Bacon: I am coming to the question of the year, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient and allow me to develop my speech. I am trying to be open and frank with the Committee and to show exactly what happened. The letter from the London Boroughs Association which accompanied the report from the town clerks stated that having received that report from the town clerks the Association had consulted the boroughs in the Greater London area, with the result, as I said on Second Reading, that the considerable majority of members—not only members of Labour boroughs; there were some Conservative boroughs, too—thought not only that we ought not to have the elections on the same day but that the elections should be postponed from 1967 to 1968.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West made great play about a meeting of a sub-committee of the London Boroughs Association, which he called a "special committee". I had said that this special committee was unanimous in its decision to recommend the postponement of the 1967 elections to 1968. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was not true. The Chairman of the

London Boroughs Association, Mr. Prichard, had written a letter to The Times in which he had said that that special committee was unanimous—and it was that letter and that assertion which the right hon. Member for Enfield, West was disputing on Second Reading.
Since Second Reading Mr. Prichard, who is naturally upset about his letter to The Times being called in question, wrote a further letter to The Times, which the newspaper did not publish. However, Mr. Prichard sent a copy of that letter to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West saying once again that the decision was unanimous. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that today, particularly since he has sent a letter to Mr. Prichard in reply; and I propose to read it. It states:
"Dear Prichard,
I don't think that the facts are in dispute"—
which is not what the right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading—
although their interpretation is a matter for debate. Of course the Minute records unanimous agreement. My own speech made this clear. I also spelt out in detail the reasons why the Conservatives raised this, and did not agree with the Minute. You hold the view, as in your unpublished letter, that this is unimportant. I am afraid I don't agree".
If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the matter was so important, why did he not raise it today?
7.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman said that his speech made this clear, but I shall read from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading. He said:
I turn now to the claim that this meeting on 28th January was unanimous, according to the claim made by the Home Secretary, and according to the claim made by its chairman in The Times. It would be very odd if it were unanimous, because among the members present were Conservative representatives from Bromley and Merton, both of which boroughs were among the small number of those who were totally opposed to the change."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966, Vol. 736, c. 246–7.]
Yet he said in his letter,
…the Minute records unanimous agreement. My own speech made this clear.
If the right hon. Gentleman sees any consistency between the letter and the speech he made, I am sorry but I do not.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I should have thought the point so obvious as not to


be necessary to make. The right hon. Lady and I have had many experiences over the years about minutes. One does not get the minutes of the meeting one is attending at that meeting but at the next meeting. The minutes at the subcommittee recorded the officials unanimity, and no doubt the right hon. Lady has seen this, but when the committee met again that was challenged by the three people whose names I have mentioned. Alderman Jordan and two other Conservative members made it quite clear that in their view that interpretation was incorrect. That is the point. Therefore, it is absolutely true that at the first meeting at which one would not see the minutes unanimity was recorded, but as soon as the Conservative members read that in print they challenged it.

Miss Bacon: I think there is a different interpretation. What happened appeared to be—and I have Mr. Prichard's views—that the meeting was unanimous, but in the meantime the Conservative Central Office get busy on the Conservative members of the committee. I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not even mention this matter in his speech this afternoon.

Mr. Sharples: Has the right hon. Lady any evidence whatsoever for the allegation she has made?

Miss Bacon: I have evidence that this was unanimous. I have the word of the chairman of the committee, and it is perfectly well known that, for instance, Sutton—which is one of the boroughs which first agreed to the change—afterwards changed its mind. Why did it change its mind afterwards? Because, I am quite sure, pressure was put on it.

Sir D. Glover: I do not know whether the right hon. Lady realises the allegations she made about perfectly honourable citizens, aldermen and councillors. She is saying in fact that they have been telling lies and have been got at by someone. I hope that she will withdraw that, unless she has some evidence.

Miss Bacon: Mr. Prichard has been accused of telling lies. Other people have been accused of telling lies. I wanted to put this straight, and I read the letter which the right hon. Member for Enfield, West sent.
During this debate the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, as he mentioned on Second Reading, the Petition which was presented in this House from Enfield. We remember that one of the hon. Member's whose constituency covers part of Enfield presented a Petition about comprehensive education on behalf of the people of Enfield. We have heard a great deal about comprehensive education and what this will mean to a borough like Enfield, but a cursory look at the Petition in the Petition Office will elucidate the facts that in addition to people in Enfield and many with postal districts in London outside Enfield the Petition was signed by people from Cambridge, Surrey, Bournemouth, Rickmansworth, Chigwell, Cheshire, Essex and other places. That much from the Petition from Enfield. We have had a lot of righteous indignation from the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Berry: Mr. Berryrose——

Miss Bacon: Wait a minute. I shall give way when I have finished my sentence. I do not think any hon. Member likes to be interrupted in the middle of a sentence. We have had a lot of righteous indignation about the people of Enfield, but I wish to show that this Petition included the names of people who do not live in Enfield.

Mr. Berry: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. As I presented the Petition, I thought that she would allow me to make a point about it. The phrase in the Petition was:
On behalf of parents, teachers, school governors and others troubled about proposed educational developments in the London Borough of Enfield."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 909.]
One does not have to live there in order to send children to be educated there. Whether parents from outside Enfield will be fools enough to send their children to be educated in our excellent schools in future, I very much doubt.

Miss Bacon: Now that the hon. Member has made the point, I should like to know which parents in Bournemouth send their children to be educated in Enfield. It might be the other way round, that parents in Enfield send their children to be educated in Bournemouth, but I do not think it is the former way.
The Amendments we have been discussing would accept that elections should not be held on the same day but that after 1967 they should be held in different years and they would allow two elections in 1967 a few weeks apart. As was said by my right hon. Friend on Second Reading of this Bill, this matter was evenly balanced. If the elections are held on the same day I am sure there would be great confusion, but if they are on different days in the same year and two local government elections come only a few weeks apart I am sure there would not be a great deal of interest in those elections—[An HON. MEMBER: "As in other places."] An hon. Member says, "As in other places". I happen to live in a place where there are local council elections and triennial elections for the county council. In the years when those two elections take place within a few weeks of each other there is not a great poll. People are apt to say, "We have just voted. What are we voting for again?" We felt that if we were to make this change it would be much better to make it from 1967 to 1968 than to have the 1967 elections and make this change at a later stage.
As was suggested on Second Reading of the London Government Bill in 1963, the ordinary triennial county council elections in Kent, Surrey and Essex were postponed from 1964 to 1965. In Committee on that Bill an hon. Member of the party opposite moved an Amendment and actually voted against his own party—Mr. Robert Jenkins then the Member for Dulwich—to postpone the London Borough elections for a year on the grounds that although the members were elected in 1964 they would not actually begin to operate until 1965 and would be in operation for only two years.
For all these reasons, I hope that the Committee will decide to defeat these Amendments and to accept the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the right hon. Lady will have deluded herself if she thinks that what she has said will have reduced in any degree at all the anxieties of my hon. Friends. I am certain that, on the contrary, they will want to probe what she has said very thoroughly as to both the origins and the justification for the Measure.
I thank her for saying that she will put the town clerks report in the Library. However, that cannot help us in this debate, because we shall not see it in time. She made it quite clear that that report had nothing to do with the origin of the Bill. She said—I took down her words—that it was devoted to the difficulties arising from there being two elections on the same day. She knows, therefore, that it has nothing whatever to do with the elections in 1967. It is not a point that arises until 1970 when, under the London Government Act, those elections would come together. It does not arise in 1967 and is no justification whatever for postponing elections in 1967.
What the right hon. Lady made clear was that one of the sources from which the decision to introduce the Bill no doubt derives was the transactions of the London Boroughs Committee with its substantial Labour majority. I thought that the right hon. Lady fell below her normal standard when she sought to attack those members of that Committee who disputed the conclusion that the original meeting had come to a unanimous decision. As I understand it, what happened was this. They saw the minutes after the meeting in the normal way. When they saw the conclusion that the decision had been unanimous, they challenged it at the first available opportunity, which was the next meeting. This is normal practice. The right hon. Lady herself knows perfectly well that, if there is an error in the minutes of Cabinet Committees, which can happen, even with the Cabinet Secretariat, rare though it is, any member can challenge the conclusion on the next occasion.
To say that this is accusing the chairman of telling lies is plain nonsense. I have no doubt that Mr. Prichard thought at the time that this was so. What the right hon. Lady is doing, however, is accusing the Conservative representatives who at the next meeting disputed that the conclusion was unanimous, of telling lies —quite unnecessarily, quite wrongly and quite unfairly.
I think that it is disgraceful that a member of the Government, particularly a Minister at the Home Office, charged with responsibilities in respect of elections, should make such an allegation against people who are not here to reply and then decline to withdraw them, although


my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) explained to her so simply and clearly how the position arose. The right hon. Lady will leave us with the impression that she is so determined to cover up the origins of the Bill that she is prepared to make charges against perfectly responsible people and not withdraw them.

Miss Bacon: I do not intend to withdraw this, because what the right hon. Gentleman keeps assuming is that in fact this Committee was not unanimous. I will read a paragraph from a letter which Mr. Prichard sent to The Times but which was not published:
Does Mr. Macleod think that the Chairman of the London Boroughs Association would write to The Times a letter without having first verified the facts? The decision of the Special Committee was indeed unanimous and the Committee instructed its officers to inform all the boroughs that the decision was unanimous.
The right hon. Gentleman might say that it is not true, but Mr. Prichard and others who were there say that it is true.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Times shows wisdom sometimes in the selection of the letters it prints and sometimes even greater wisdom in its selection of those it does not print. I hope that this is an example of the latter. The right hon. Lady is no doubt giving Mr. Prichard's impressions, but he was indeed the chairman at the subsequent meeting when the alleged unanimity of the earlier decision was challenged. I am not accusing Mr. Prichard, because I am not so easy with these charges of telling lies. I say that Mr. Prichard was plain wrong, and it is even more wrong of the right hon. Lady in these circumstances to charge perfectly responsible—indeed, very distinguished—public representatives in local government of telling lies. This is what she said.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich) rose——

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am dealing with the right hon. Lady and I do not see why it is necessary that she should have learned counsel come to her defence. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) will have every opportunity to take part in the debate later, if he wishes. The Committee will simply note—and I pass on—that the

right hon. Lady has made wholly uncorroborated charges, but has not the courage to withdraw them.
The Committee has before it a perfectly clear issue. Part of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Lady's speech was that she never addressed herself to it. The clear issue is this. Granted that it is desirable, if it be so granted, that elections should take place on different days for the G.L.C. and for the boroughs, the methods proposed both in Amendment No. 1 and in Amendment No. 2 would achieve that purpose. That is not disputed. They would achieve that purpose without doing what is repugnant to many of us—that is, extending the mandate of people already elected to serve for a period for which they were not elected. Is that disputed?

Mr. Foley: Who did it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Under-Secretary has already made one very unfortunate observation, to which I shall return later. I would counsel him not to go on doing so, or he may find the Chief Whip tugging at his sleeve.
It would be perfectly possible to do this. I am not saying—I turn to the Under-Secretary now—that never in any circumstances can or should the term of office or people who have been elected be extended. But there are two conditions which seem to me to be fundamental. One is that there is a real practical necessity, such as a reorganisation of local government or a redistribution. The second is that there should be broad agreement between the parties. Neither of those circumstances occur here.
As I have said—the right hon. Lady has not challenged it—there are two methods—those set out in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2—by which this could be achieved without extending for a day the term of office of any councillor. That being so, the Committee wants to know why the right hon. Lady has not adopted one of these methods.
I had much sympathy for the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) when he said that it was incredible that a Committee of the whole House should spend a whole day, and it may be other days, discussing this matter when there are, as he so rightly said, so many other matters that the


House of Commons would wish to discuss. The responsibility for that lies with the right hon. Lady and, indeed, with the Home Secretary, because, if they were prepared, even at this stage, to accept either of these Amendments, I have little doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends would do everything possible to facilitate the passage of the amended Measure.
Therefore, if time is being wasted as the result of the Measure—a Measure introduced, as the Committee may remember, in priority to half a dozen other Measures of social merit which the Home Secretary himself has said he would like to introduce—this is due to the right hon. Lady's persisting in the one method of effecting the variation in dates which involves a continuation in office of councillors already elected.
The Committee must ask why the Government are prepared to sacrifice that most precious of all commodities to a Government—Parliamentary time—to do it in this way. The only conclusion must be the sordid one that they desire at all costs to avoid having elections in 1967 in the London boroughs, many of which they know they will lose. This is the irresistible conclusion to which the Committee is led by the Government's conduct.

Mr. William Molloy: If the right hon. Gentleman really means what he said—I hope he does not—he could lay the same charge against all the various committees, including the town clerks' committee, which studied this problem and arrived at the same decision. The gravamen of his argument is that people were influenced in securing a delay because they wished to give one particular party electoral advantage. Was this why the town clerks reached their decision? Was this why the many other associations which met reached their decision? The right hon. Gentleman and his party are in a minority and have an illogical argument.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has got into a fairly lengthy intervention—I must hand it to him—more concentrated nonsense and inaccuracy than I have ever heard any Member get into a comparable period. But there is one basic flaw.

Mr. Molloy: Come off the Palladium act. Answer my question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would perform at the Palladium. He is more suited to a provincial hall.
The one basic flaw in his argument is that the town clerks did not—so far as the right hon. Lady told us, and we have not seen their report—recommend this particular solution. I have already quoted the right hon. Lady's words, so that the hon. Gentleman has absolutely no excuse for saying what he did. The right hon. Lady's own words were that their report was devoted to the difficulties of having two elections on the same day. There was not a single word about postponing the elections in 1967 when, as the hon. Gentleman may perhaps by now be aware, the elections would not be on the same day anyhow.
I return to the right hon. Lady and the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) was right to refer to the limited contribution by hon. Members opposite. I feel that this is a criticism of them, because in the past there have not been lacking hon. Members on those benches who have been prepared to stand up for the rights of the citizen to vote for his representatives. There seems to be no appreciation on that side of the Committee that what is being done now is to diminish the rights of the citizen to elect his councillors on the date on which, under the present law, he would be entitled to do so. That is a diminution of the rights of the citizen as an elector.
I have conceded that there may be circumstances in which that right must in some measure be sacrificed—plain necessity and perhaps agreement between the parties—neither of which exists here. What is so depressing about the debate is that hon. Members opposite do not even seem to think that it matters that this right is being taken away. They do not say, "This is a bad thing—we accept that—but we have to put other considerations against it". They do not even seem to appreciate that to diminish the rights of the citizen requires very special justification, which we have not so far had.

Mr. Weitzman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was broad


agreement between the parties when the London County Council was destroyed by the London Government Act, and the borough councils were altered?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has, I think, the clearness of mind to appreciate, that is a very different matter. The essence of that was not the postponement of elections, but the reorganisation of local government in London. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that the Metropolis should be saddled with a local government system which is 80 years out of date, because a minority in the House did not agree that it should be reorganised. If that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, it is rather odd coming from one who regards himself as a member of a progressive party.

Mr. Weitzman: That is a false argument.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to take part in the debate later if he so wishes. We are in Committee and as his first interjections have been, as he must well know, wholly irrelevant to the argument I am putting, I do not see why he should pile a Pelion of futility on an Ossa of irrelevance.
Even more astonishing than the attitude of hon. Members opposite was the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who said that it was odd that the Conservative Party should make so much fuss about this. There was a day when the Liberal Party stood up for the rights of the electors and free elections. There was a day when it used to care about them, and it is no coincidence that since it ceased to care about them it has also ceased to matter in this country.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in five local by-elections in the London Borough of Bromley this year the Conservative vote has decreased by 1,600, the Socialist vote by 1,000, and the Liberal vote has increased by 450?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman is as encouraged by that as he would have us believe I would expect to find him in the Lobby with us on the Amendment, because if he really believes

that his party, contrary to all the evidence, is going forward—

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman doubt my word?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's word, but I am expressing doubt whether the singular triumph which he has carefully produced for us this evening represents any general tendency throughout the Metropolitan area. I give it to the hon. Gentleman that he has had a wonderful triumph, but it is odd that he is not prepared to put it to a more general test by having elections as we could and should have in May.
Then we come to the extraordinary intervention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who, when one of my hon. Friends was saying that the electors should have a chance to pronounce on the very difficult question of comprehensive schools, said, "Oh, but you have had two General Elections and you have had a G.L.C. election", leading to the conclusion that such elections were final. That is the very language of tyranny. Hitler came to power after winning an election, and there never was another. His line of reasoning was that these were final.
If the Under-Secretary knew as much as he should about the structure of London he would know that in the outer areas the education authorities, which are the bodies here concerned, are the boroughs, and their electors have not had the chance to vote since 1964. The Under-Secretary well knows that in 1964 the question of comprehensive schooling was a very minor issue. Therefore, I do not think that he has helped his case.
If one has a democratic system in this country, one election is not final. When the predetermined period is over, those elected must submit themselves to the judgment of their fellow countrymen, but that is precisely what the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues seek to deny them under the Bill, and to deny them in a very crucial area.
I do not want to trespass over issues which you may think will more conveniently arise on later Amendments, Sir Eric, but the fact remains that the year in which the electors are to be disfranchised in the London boroughs is of


crucial importance to them. There is the issue of the form of secondary education, into which we shall perhaps go at greater length later. It was extraordinary that the right hon. Lady thought that the only people entitled even to petition the House were those who lived in the boroughs concerned and the other people concerned. The right hon. Lady thought that she had made a great point because one of the signatures on my hon. Friend's petition came from the remote hamlet of Rickmansworth. She evidently thought it a very good point. But there are other people concerned with schools, with children at schools in these boroughs or with the structure of education in this country, about which many of us care a great deal——

Mr. Richard: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am in the middle of a sentence. They are fully entitled to question whether the Government are right, and to petition the House in appropriate terms that this be not done. If the right hon. Lady is reduced to that point, her argument is becoming very weak indeed.

Mr. Richard: As I understand the Opposition's argument, it is that the people who live in the areas of London who are affected by the comprehensive reorganisation who should have the right to vote on it in 1967. How does someone living in Bournemouth, who is interested in what is happening in Enfield, have a vote in the Borough of Enfield, which is affected by the Bill?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Any citizen has the right to petition the House that another citizen be not disfranchised. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could apprehend that. We are still a country in which there is this right of expression and many of those citizens, being sensible people—they would not have signed my hon. Friend's petition if they were not—know perfectly well that if there are elections in these boroughs there will be a change in the composition of those borough councils. They think, as they are entitled to think, that it will be a change for the better.
8.0 p.m.
If the Government have their way, the decision is to be shuffled off for a

year, shuffled off while they decide the issue of secondary education, and shuffled off until, so they hope, they will be on a better wicket. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) said that we were wrong about this and that we might do even better in 1968. He may well be right. I think that the swing will continue against the Government. But this is no conclusive argument for submitting the electors of these boroughs to Socialist misrule for a further year, even though the Conservatives will have a larger majority when the time comes.
Implicit in the hon. Gentleman's observations, of course, was the real condemnation of this Measure. He admitted the force of our case that opinion is against the Labour Party and it is keeping its councillors in office against the tide of changing public opinion. This is the condemnation of what the Government are doing.
This is not a question of the Home Secretary's bland comments about the town clerks. It is not a question of neatly balanced considerations as to whether or not elections should take place on the same day or another day, with which the right hon. Gentleman regaled us at the beginning of his speech on Second Reading. This is a deliberate decision by the Government to effect the separation of dates from 1970 onwards by the one method open to them which will deprive the electors of London of the right to decide how they want their local authorities run in 1967 and 1968. As the Economist said in the passage already quoted, it is a sorry matter with which the Home Secretary has soiled his fingers.

Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has dealt with the Minister of State's intervention more adequately than I can, but I hope that, before the debate ends, we shall have something like an answer from the Government Front Bench. The smokescreen put up by the right hon. Lady was of a quality which should qualify her for the Treasury before next year's Finance Bill comes round. We had the smokescreen, we had talk about the town clerks' committee, which is irrelevant to today's debate, and we had a long diatribe about the special committee, but no attempt at


all to answer the points which have been made.
After a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing, though most of the contributions have come from this side of the Committee and we have heard precious little from hon. Members opposite, the fact remains that no one really believes that, were the Labour Government not in the mess they are in today, we would have had this Bill before us now. Only the Government's knowledge that their national policies are in such a state that their dismal performance will be reflected in local elections next spring and the unpopularity of so many local authorities controlled by the Labour Party have brought them to the decision to postpone these elections.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), whose reluctance to give way is matched only by his ignorance of affairs in London, seemed unsure of what the debate was about. The debate is about the rescue by this Government of Labour local authorities from the wrath of the electorate next spring. It is about the right of parents to vote against the spread of comprehensive schooling in outer London.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) pointed out that, in the few contributions we have had from the Government side of the Committee, there have been constant references to the London Government Act, 1963. One would imagine from these references, particularly from the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), that the Labour Party is now thoroughly disillusioned with the working of this Act and regards it as a thoroughly bad Measure. Yet this is not the view of the London Boroughs Association, which, in its evidence to the Royal Commission on Local Government in London, paragraph 6, says:
The general view is that the new system is working well and that the advantages are many and that these by far outweigh the defects. This is in spite of the fact that, in a reorganisation of such magnitude, difficulties and disadvantages are at their most apparent in the early days and that the full advantages will not be fully felt for some years to come".
Although it is not strictly within the terms of the debate, it is worth pointing out the now generally accepted view of the advantages which have accrued to

London from the reorganisation of its Government flowing from the 1963 Act so that it is now the only great city in the world whose administration matches the reality of its geography. This is something for which the electors of London are thankful.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Gentleman gives that as a generally accepted view. Who says that it is the generally accepted view? He has quoted one opinion in its favour. He can take it from me that there is a great deal of criticism and, had it been possible for this Government to reverse the Act, they would, I am sure, have done so.

Mr. Scott: In his rather irrelevant talk about the town clerks' committee on Second Reading the Home Secretary laid great stress on the value which should be placed on the opinion of people who have to work a particular system. The London Boroughs Committee has to work the system of London Government, and it wholeheartedly supports the new scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made clear at the outset, this Bill has been reared on a misconception and on squalid electoral advantage. The impressive build-up of opinion in responsible journals like the Economist and others has been quoted already. They are united in acquitting the Home Secretary of being anything but the dupe of the London Labour Party, but it is on his shoulders that the real blame for the Bill must rest, for it is he who has brought it before the House.
When the trimmings have been stripped away, we are left, first, with the argument based on administrative convenience. This has been cleared out of the way now. Although it was not made clear on Second Reading that it is largely irrelevant to the question of elections next spring, this point has now been settled and we know that the town clerks' arguments for administrative convenience were not concerned with the postponement of the elections next spring. Even so, the Home Secretary said that the arguments were very nicely balanced in this matter and that it was a nice question to decide on which side of the fence to come down. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has


unjustly incurred a certain amount of unjustified odium for other causes for which he stands should think it worth while to incur more for bringing this rather squalid Measure before the House.
We are left, therefore, with party political advantage alone. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. Albert Evans), who has left the Chamber now, tried to make the rather ludicrous case on Second Reading that the new arrangement had been reached so as to save Conservative Party workers in North London. No one will give much credence to that. He was very much nearer the mark when he said:
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly introduced the Bill in order to make as sure as he can that next spring the field will be clear so that the Greater London Council elections can be held in the most favourable circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 305–6.]
That is probably closer to the political truth than the other ludicrous argument
to which I have referred.
The London Labour Party's approach to local government in London, ever since the reform of London government was first mooted, has been motivated simply and solely by party political advantage, with no consideration whatever for good government and democracy in London. In paragraph 210 of its Report, the Royal Commission said:
The London Labour Party is not only the policy-making body, but is also the party machine for organising the party and fighting elections. It appeared to us that its principal…object was to ensure that as far as possible any reorganisation of London Government would facilitiate rather than impede its task as a party machine of gaining and maintaining political power.
I do not dispute that it is perfectly right to do that. It is a legitimate aim. It is what political parties are for, and it is perfectly legitimate for them to do that if they pursue it according to the rules; but it is not legitimate for them to do that if they persuade the Government of the day to change the rules, as they are doing in this case, so that they can secure an unfair advantage.

Mr. Molloy: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me. What rules were broken for members of the London Labour Party for over 30 years when they consistently won elections in London?

Mr. Scott: If they were confident of their ability to get control of the boroughs, then they they did so. Why are they doing so now? I am saying that they are breaking the rules in persuading the Government of the day in this Bill, to gerrymander elections for their advantage. I am not speaking about what happened over the last 30 years. This is the time when they are bending, or breaking, the rules to their own political advantage.
I now return to the question of administrative convenience. The Report of the Royal Commission on London Local Government, page 59, says, in defining local government:
By local government' we mean 'local self-government'. We make the point because at all historical times in England there have been, in any given locality, two forms of government existing side by side. One is the local administration of the central government carrying out within the locality the policy of the central government; the other is the internal regulation of the affairs and services of some community.…
It seems to me that the Labour Government, by this Bill, are confusing two systems of government of local affairs.
The Report goes on to say:
Great sums of money and a great effort in terms of man power are annually spent on the provision of local government services. It is essential therefore that the system of government should be one which promotes efficiency and economy in the use of both human and financial resources. There is need for a continuous search for methods of operation which will yield the best results at the lowest cost.
The next paragraph says:
In contrast to some other systems of government, representative Government properly so-called seeks to give outward form to the inward unity of a living community. Local Government is with us an instance of democracy at work, and no amount of potential administrative efficiency could make up for the loss of active participation in the work by capable, public-spirited people elected by, responsible to, and in touch with those who elect them.
It seems to me that the Government are planning to deny the working of local democracy in London by the Bill which is before us.
Briefly, I want to look at the argument advanced by the right hon. Lady about the confusion which is supposed to occur from elections which take place around the same time. I am not even sure that I accept the argument about the confusion which arises from elections taking place on the same day. Indeed, in many


ways I think that perhaps it will make it clearer to people who are voting for different bodies if the elections should take place on the same day. Certainly, I think that when we have elections in successive years there is a case for saying that a proportion of the electorate believe it is the same body or the same local council that they are re-electing when the next election comes around. If we have elections that are fairly close at least we have the opportunity to explain to the electorate the different functions of the two local authorities for which they are voting.
Then we are told that a low poll results from this sort of election; yet the 1949 figures show that there is no case for this suggestion, because in 1949 we had a higher than average poll in London when the L.C.C. and the local boroughs were elected together. Even if we did accept that some confusion resulted from the holding of the elections fairly close together, we have also to ask ourselves whether the confusion is such that we are entitled to deny the electors of London their right to pass their judgment next spring on the borough councils' performance over the past three years.
Of the two Amendments that seek to alter the situation, I come down in favour of that which would give the new councils four years rather than two in which to govern. A two-year period would smack of a rather temporary arrangement and councils would immediately be thinking of the next election. If we must have either a two-year or four-year period, the longer period would be better. But the principle is that for whatever period they are elected they should be allowed to serve.
Finally, one accepts that there will be some administrative convenience which will result if this Bill unfortunately is passed. I do not personally accept that the argument about confusion is at all valid, but one may be wrong. Even if one accepts both these things, one comes down in favour of the solution which was found in 1948 by the then Labour Government. What I do not accept is the solution which the Government are putting before the Committee, and I hope, therefore, that before the evening is out the Government will decide to accept one of these Amendments which are before the Committee.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful for being given this opportunity to speak. As you yourself will no doubt have observed, Mr. Brewis, I took the very first opportunity of rising to address the Committee at the end of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but, unfortunately, I was not at that time able to catch the eye of your predecessor in the Chair.
It was my intention to reply immediately to the disgraceful insinuations made by the right hon. Gentleman against a distinguished servant of London, Mr. Norman Prichard. The right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me when I sought to put a question to him about it. He singled me out by giving me the compliment of making me the only hon. Member for whom he did not have the courage to give way during the course of his speech.
I rise to make only a few remarks. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's attack on Mr. Prichard was shocking. Mr. Prichard is a gentleman who for many years was chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council. He was for many years chairman of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Committee and then of the London Boroughs Association. He has, therefore, had tremendous experience, particularly experience in taking the chair. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the course of a meeting of a special committee consisting, I understand, in its full complement of 15 members—10 Labour members and five Conservative members—and inferred either that Mr. Prichard told an untruth about the way in which three members of that committee voted or that this distinguished chairman, with his very great experience, on a matter which is regarded by the Conservative Party as a very great and indeed fundamental matter, was quite unaware of the fact that three Conservatives out of five were opposing the proposal which that Committee was putting forward.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect this Committee to believe that anything of that kind could have happened? If he does not, the only possible alternative is that notwithstanding the words that he used to this Committee, he is accusing this distinguished public servant of telling lies—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Silkin: I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give way to me. Why should I give way to him? His was an utterly shocking speech. He made some utterly shocking insinuations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the grace at some stage to withdraw and apologise to Mr. Prichard.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Brewis. The hon. and learned Gentleman issues an express challenge and asks me to say something on the point. Is it in order for him to lack the guts to give way?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Silkin: On this matter, I speak from the standpoint of someone who has at all times taken the view that, in broad principle, the Report of the Royal Commission was right; who has said so to his colleagues—although his colleagues have frequently disagreed with him—and who, indeed, anticipated the views of the Royal Commission in the report for which he was responsible at a time when he was a member of the Camberwell Borough Council. I therefore hope that it will not be suggested by any hon. Member opposite that in opposing these Amendments, and supporting what the Government are doing, I am acting from any point of view of "squalid political advantage"—to use an expression that has been put forward.
What encourages me is that as far as I can understand the argument which the Opposition has put forward on the basis of squalid political advantage, it must mean that they, at any rate, expect that in 1968 we shall be in a much more popular state in the country than in 1967. Otherwise, there could be no possible advantage in deferring the election to that year. I am much encouraged to hear that that is their view. I have no doubt that we shall be in a much more popular state in 1968 than in 1967, but I am equally confident that in 1967 we shall be popular enough to swing London and win control, whether we are fighting for the G.L.C. alone or for the London boroughs as well.
The reason for this deferment has nothing to do with political popularity or any matter of that kind. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State herself has said, there is every reason—whether or not one accepts the views of the Royal Commission and what was done by the Conservative Party in the Measure which we are now amending—to ensure that elected members have adequate time for the discharge of their duties.
The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said that he much preferred the Amendment which would give four years of office to elected members rather than that which would give only two years. I think that the elected members should have a normal period of three years; that councillors will be better councillors if they have three years, and that, if the matter is looked at from a perfectly dispassionate and impartial point of view, there is every reason why the extra year should be given to them.
In those circumstances, and having regard to fact that, as I understand it, it is accepted that there is advantage at some stage in altering the situation so that the elections do not come in the same year or at the same time, I think that by far the best time to do it is now, when we will have given these gentlemen the benefit of the two years' experience they will have had, and add to those two years an extra year to form a normal triennium period for councillors.
Having listened to a substantial part of the debate, I find the arguments in favour of the Amendments singularly unconvincing. I can see no other reason for their being put forward than an attempt to wreck the Bill, which the Opposition clearly dislike intensely.

Sir Ronald Russell: I support the argument of my right hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for not postponing the elections, and those advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) and for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) for educational reasons. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) and I probably have stronger reasons than anyone else for not wishing these elections to be postponed, because I understand that the


scheme for comprehensive education put forward by the Borough of Brent Council is further advanced than that of any other outer London borough. In fact, I believe that it is the only one that has been passed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
When the Brent Council was elected, three years ago, the electors had no idea —although they knew perfectly well that the Labour Party intended to put forward a scheme of comprehensive education—what the comprehensive education scheme would be, nor do I think that the Labour majority on the council had any idea until it got control. The scheme being put forward joins at least three groups of schools in different places, separated, in some cases, by important main roads, and schools that are totally unsuitable for grouping for comprehensive education.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I do not take a doctrinaire view of comprehensive schools. If they are set up in new areas, in one building, or in buildings grouped in one area, where there is not a lot of running from one part of the borough to the other, there may be something to be said for them, but there is nothing to be said for a scheme such as that put forward by the Brent Council, and the electors should be given their chance next May to vote on this scheme. No one can say with certainty how the vote would go, but they should be given that chance, as is laid down by the law as it stands, and should not be compelled to wait until May, 1968, when the scheme may have been put into operation, as it might not have been in 1967. That is my main reason for objecting to the Bill, and for hoping that the Government will yet see the wisdom of allowing these elections to take place in May, 1967.
As the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is in his place again. I should like to deal with what he said about too many elections taking place in quick succession. In 1955, outside inner London, there were elections for the county council on 14th April and for the boroughs on 12th May. Only two weeks later, there was a General Election——

Mr. Weitzman: Too many!

Sir R. Russell: That may be the hon. and learned Gentleman's personal opinion, but I would point out that my party made gains in both those local government elections and made sweeping gains in the General Election on 26th May of that year, when we increased our majority from about 15 to about 50. That shows that the electors did not take umbrage at having three elections thrust upon them not only in outer London but all over the country. The fact that they had all this work to do and three successive votes did not at least alienate them from the Conservative Party at the time.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: What was the voting percentage?

Sir R. Russell: I have not the figures for these areas, but I hazard a guess that it was about 40 per cent. in outer London for both the county council and borough council elections—the average is between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. and that in the General Election it was 75 per cent. to 80 per cent.
I do not think that three successive elections had any effect on the General Election figures that year, although they may have had some effect on borough figures. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the figures have held a fairly steady average in outer London of about 40 per cent. plus in local elections in every year in which there have been elections up to 1964. On the other hand, the poll has been small in inner London. Sometimes it has been as low as 30 per cent.
The first election I took part in was in the old division of Southwark, South-East, in 1934. The candidates were the present Lord Silkin, the present Lord Jessel, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and myself. There was a 21 per cent. poll in that small area of about a square mile bounded by the Old Kent Road and Walworth Road. That is about the lowest percentage poll on record. The percentage varies all over inner London but I think that the average for the former Metropolitan boroughs was probably lower than anywhere else in the country. That may be because they always had triennial elections instead of annual.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What was the majority in Southwark, South-East?

Sir R. Russell: The Labour majority was about 5,000, I believe, with about 1,300 for the Conservatives. I believe that annual elections, which were held for so long, were one of the reasons for low polling.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Surely this is the point. The intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) strikes the nail right on the head. The constituency I represent, for example, is, in Parliamentary terms, a highly marginal area, unlike Southwark, South-East. The proportion of people who vote in local government elections in such areas, even in those which are very one-sided, is very much wider. We normally reach 50 per cent. poll or more.

Sir R. Russell: I am glad to hear it, but it varies from area to area. It may be that there is a low poll in Westminster, but I have not the figures for inner London. What the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests may be one of the reasons for a low poll. I am in favour of annual elections.
I stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley)—that the problem of having two successive elections separated by only a month occurs everywhere else in the country, in Scotland, I believe, as well as in England. Indeed, during the debates on the London Government Act, I gave some figures of the number of local authorities which have annual elections. This means two elections in the same year because county councils are involved as well.
No fewer than 1,317 non-county boroughs, 435 urban districts and 125 rural districts in England and Wales and 198 burghs in Scotland have annual elections. I have not checked the figures recently, but I have no reason to think that they have altered during the last three years. Thus, these areas outside the inner London area have double elections separated by probably only one month, possibly even less in Scotland. There never seems to have been any protest against that system from other parts of England and Wales. I see no argument for going against the system now.
I was rather impressed, too, by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), who quoted what happens in the United States when often 10 individuals are elected on one poll. I have no doubt that the Americans have mechanical methods of electioneering which may make it easier than it would be for a returning officer to deal with elections over here. It is a little difficult to understand why the town clerks' committee should have been so nervous of having elections on the same day in Greater London when such a scheme can be managed in the United States. However, I do not intend to argue that, As I say, I am in favour more of anual elections than of biennial elections.
I feel very strongly about the educational aspect of this matter, but for which I would not worry so much about the rest of the Bill. I am also rather surprised that during the whole of this debate there have not been more than about 15 of the Labour Members for Greater London present at any one time.

Mr. Foley: What about the benches opposite?

Sir R. Russell: There have been about 15 on this side, too, but we are only 30 strong, whereas the Labour Members for Greater London total 60-plus, not including the Chairman of Ways and Means. While there are some who have been present consistently throughout the debate, like the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), I sometimes wonder whether the others are paying enough attention to the main issue in this debate, which I regard as education. For this reason, I hope that the Government will still agree to postpone the Bill.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): The indictment which faces the Government as they sit in the dock this evening is, to my mind, one of obtaining time and further time by false pretences. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), who has now left. He stressed that the debate was a complete and utter and disgraceful waste of time. If the hon. Member has time to read HANSARD tomorrow, I think he will find that so far the only time which has been wasted


was the time taken up by his speech. It was utterly irrelevant and showed absolutely no knowledge whatever of the subject.
The only matter of any concern in the hon. Member's speech was when he apologised for coming from Birmingham to speak. I hope that he and his constituents are now taking advantage of the changes in local government there which will enable them to buy their own council houses, which will, no doubt, have a great success in the elections here in Greater London in the near future.
I rise to speak in this debate because I represent the constituency of Ruislip and Northwood, which is situated in the borough of Hillingdon. If there is one matter which is causing more concern than any other during the 16 or nearly 17 year; that I have represented the constituency, it is the reorganisation of education. Parents and teachers are very worried and upset by the reorganisation which is taking place. They would dearly bye to have an opportunity of expressing their views—I am not arguing the merits of the comprehensive school tonight—one way or the other about how they feel that the future of their children should be treated.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) But for the question of comprehensive schooling and the tremendous upset which has taken place in particular in my constituency, I certainly would not be speaking here tonight. From what I have seen, however, I have no doubt whatever that the Government are pushing this Measure through because they want to get their own comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, although large numbers of meetings have been held in Ruislip and Northwood, there has never been true consultation as between the local education authority and the parents and teachers concerned.
I wonder whether I can give the Committee on independent example of the sort of thing which is going on and of the way in which this Measure is being pushed through and will ultimately be pushed through if elections are not held to save the situation when they should be held early next spring. On 5th October, there was a public meeting at Uxbridge when one of the speakers was

a Mrs. Dean, who is an officer of the Hillingdon Federation of Parent-Teachers' Associations representative of no fewer than 10,000 children in school today. She said:
The consultation has not been as real as the number of meetings has indicated. We asked the chairman of the education committee to meet our chairman, in July. The letter has not even been acknowledged. If Hillingdon borough are really sincere about consultation they must meet us in a different atmosphere than mass meetings.
That is the sort of situation which is being stirred up. That is why parents and teachers, throughout not only my constituency but the whole Borough of Hillingdon, naturally want to be able to do what they should be entitled to do, which is democratically and freely to state their opinions in the ballot box next April. As we have heard, because of the action taken by the Government, they are to be denied that opportunity.
It was only as late as May of this year that it was suddenly decided by the local education authority to alter the age of transfer from 11 to 12 years. This decision has caused great anxiety. The education authority claimed that there had been full consultation, but the parents have not been consulted about this alteration of the age of transfer. There has not been the time.
I do not wish to mislead the Committee in any way, but there is one matter which I should like to raise. When I was discussing these matters in the constituency on Friday, I was informed by persons who should know—and I say at once that they might well have been wrong—that a letter had been sent from the Home Office to clerks of various local authorities asking for their views on the postponement of the elections on the basis—and I stress this—that the elections were to be held on the same day. I do not know—I have not see the letter——

Miss Bacon: If the hon. and learned Member has not seen the letter, he ought not to say that. I would be very glad to see the letter to which he is referring, because my information is that it did not say that. The letters which have gone out are with HANSARD at the moment and so I cannot quote them, but what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is completely untrue.

Mr. Crowder: We shall have to see. I am not making an allegation but merely reporting to the Committee what I have been told. At this stage it is purely hearsay evidence.

Mr. Herbert Butler: On a point of order. I thought that it was the accepted practice of the House of Commons that a Member should accept responsibility for the statement which he made. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a statement and then to deny its authenticity? [Interruption.] When the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) stops cackling, I will wait for a response from the Chair. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a statement and then withdraw it and say that he accepts no responsibility for it? I venture to suggest that there have been rulings that hon. Members must accept responsibility for statements which they make.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order. I do not see how you could rule on that, Mr. Brewis. It will be within your recollection that the statement on which the point of order was based was completely invalid. That was not what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) said.

Miss Bacon: Can I clear up this matter? I do not have the actual letter——

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. No doubt we shall be delighted to hear the right hon. Lady clear up the matter, but surely the point of order must be dealt with first.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is correct. As I understood what passed, the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) asked a question and got an answer. I have not heard anything out of order.

Mr. Crowder: That is precisely what the situation was. I was only reporting to the Committee something which I had been told. It was purely hearsay. I said that it was, and I said that I was unable to substantiate it. I was asking the

Minister for information as to whether there was any truth in these statements which had come to my ears. I should have thought that one was entitled to ask even a Socialist Minister for that sort of information and to get an answer.

Miss Bacon: If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads HANSARD of 15th November, he will see that I quoted the letter which was sent to the G.L.C., a copy of which was sent to the London Boroughs Committee, in which we said:
Note has been taken of the suggestion that after 1967 the election of London borough councils should be held not only on a separate day but in a different year from that on which the elections of Greater London Councils are held.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, col. 361.]
That was the only communication which went from the Home Office.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Crowder: Would the right hon. Lady help me in this way? Would she consider publishing or putting in the Library all the correspondence which has gone from the Home Office to the various local authorities and the clerks concerned so that we might have an opportunity of perusing it? That would probably clear up the matter straight away.

Miss Bacon: I have no objection to that, but the only letter which has gone out from us is the letter to the G.L.C., a copy of which was sent to the London Boroughs Committee, which I quoted on 15th November. No other letter has gone out.

Mr. Crowder: Is the right hon. Lady certain that no other letter has gone out to local authorities? I do not ask her to state that categorically. If she does not know the answer, I will accept that. But can she give a complete answer? I see her looking to the Official Box.

Miss Bacon: No other letter has gone out. The letter which went out was sent to the G.L.C. and a copy was sent to the London Boroughs Committee. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read my Second Reading speech or had been present during the Second Reading debate he would have realised that.

Mr. Crowder: I end by saying that the parents, voters and teachers in my constituency think it an absolute outrage that they should be denied the right to vote


and express their views particularly on comprehensive education next spring.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I am glad to follow in the debate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), because only a short time ago I supported him in the debate which he so wisely initiated in the House calling attention to the incompetent and unsatisfactory way in which the borough of Hillingdon had approached its responsibilities in education. In that debate, I was able to support him because many of my constituents in Harrow are educated, and indeed some teach, at the schools in his borough. It is fair to say that we had the better of that debate. Points concerning my hon. and learned Friend's constituents were brought to the Floor of the House and the follies of the Hillingdon Borough Council were exposed.
How right my hon. and learned Friend was to speak in this debate and to indicate the sort of thing which is going on all over London—these inadequate, unsatisfactory schemes for education, which do not meet the wishes of parents, of the electorate, or of the teachers. [Interruption.] Whether they do or not, the fact is that the public should have the right to decide on them. That is precisely what this debate is about.
I do not care two hoots whether the town clerks approve, whether they have a meeting, whether the meeting is unanimous, or whether it is difficult to hump ballot boxes about. Nor do I care for the absurd argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) to the effect that the poor, dim-witted electorate find it so terribly confusing to have to make a simple choice for their borough candidate and G.L.C. candidate. I do not believe that people are such fools.
I recall a local election some years ago—I cannot remember exactly where it was, but it was not very far from my constituency—in which there were no fewer than three candidates with the name of Smith. But this did not confuse the electorate in any way, because the Smith who was a Conservative was elected with a substantial majority. I do not believe that there is anything in this argument, any more than there is in

what I call the town clerk argument. We can sympathise with the town clerks. They are local officials, and they are administrators. They are like the Civil Service. They are sea green incorruptibles. They are anxious to see the business dealt with as quickly as possible. They want the minimum amount of trouble. They carry out their job with the greatest degree of efficiency, but they will be pleased if there is no election. But there is one qualification. Town clerks and local government officials are paid for carrying out their duties, so I do not think that we can count this argument very strongly, and I think that those are two feeble arguments to advance in support of the Bill.
The third argument is one which the Home Secretary advanced. It was on some rather grandiose democratic principle, that there is such a low poll when there are two elections on the same day that it is a denial of democracy in some way, and therefore people cannot be bothered to turn out. I do not think that this argument can be supported, and indeed the figures which I have do not bear it out. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the position which existed in 1949, he will find that when the Metropolitan boroughs and the L.C.C. elections were held in the same year the average turnout was 38·2 per cent. If one looks at the average for the two years when elections were held in the same year, namely, 1949 and 1964, one finds that in the former the average turnout was 38·2, and in the latter it was 27·6 for the Inner London boroughs, so that one gets an average of 32·9 per cent.
If that is compared with the average for the four years when the metropolitan borough elections and the L.C.C. elections were held in separate years, from 1953 to 1962, one finds that the average was 33·8 per cent. If the House is not entirely and utterly bored by this recitation of percentages, it will be appreciated that the difference in the poll in those two circumstances was no more than 1 per cent., thus the right hon. Gentleman's argument about a low poll also falls to the ground.
It is my submission that all these arguments are a mere smokescreen to disguise the real purpose behind the Bill. It really is monstrous, and I believe insulting to the House—we are all engaged in politics—to suppose that we can fall


for the tale that this is something to do with the convenience of town clerks, or low polls, or something of that nature. This is absolute nonsense. The object behind the Bill is clear. It is to perpetuate Labour rule in those boroughs where they have the power so that they can perpetuate their educational policies. This is perfectly clear.
In my submission there is nothing wrong in people wanting to win an election. There is nothing wrong in a democracy in wanting to get votes, whether Conservative or Socialist. This is a thoroughly good thing. There are some high-minded people, and some of them on local authorities, who take a rather detached point of view, and think that politics in local government is not a desirable thing, that it should be expunged in some way, and that we should all be non-party political animals. I do not share this view, although I appreciate that it is held with the best possible motives. There is nothing wrong in seeking to get votes, or to win elections. What is wrong is to monkey with the rules by means of jiggery pokery and to pretend that one is doing something else. This is what is wrong.
Where will it end? What will be the next stage? What will happen about boundaries? This is the next lot of jiggery pokery to which we shall be subjected. What is happening in London now could happen in many other parts of the country. If this is to be the normal pattern, what about Parliament itself? When this was raised, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock),—I am sorry that he is not here—who we all know is such a non-party political animal, poured scorn on the suggestion that Parliament might be affected. He said that it was absolutely absurd and that people would be so surprised that they would rise up in anger against such a proposal.
For example, the Prime Minister might decide that the Government needed more than five years to fulfil all the Socialist programme, and might say, "We have been blown a little off course, the wind has not been quite right and, after all, we need a little longer, perhaps another year, in which to achieve reflation in time to persuade the electorate to give us another mandate." Therefore, I can well see him arguing, "This is a simple

and not a party political move to extend the life of Parliament, and a grave national disaster—

Mr. S. C. Silkin: On a point of order. Has this anything whatever to do with the London Government Bill?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is straying somewhat wide, but I have heard nothing out of order yet.

Mr. Grant: I am most grateful, Mr. Brewis. I can understand the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), but I should have thought that he would have been as concerned as anybody at the thought that Parliament's life could be extended. If it were, I am certain that the Parliamentary majorities of hon. Members opposite would be far worse than if it took place in four years' time. I merely emphasise that it could easily happen.
After all, there have been many surprises since the last election. Who could have imagined or expected the powers which have been taken under the Prices and Incomes Bill. I appreciate that I must not stray into these fields, and I pass now to the basic points which concern us under the Bill.
I thought that the speech of the right hon. Lady was one of the most inadequate defences of a wholly indefensible Bill which we have heard in the House for a very long time. The fact that she sought to draw red herrings across the path about whether votes at meetings were unanimous or not and other irrelevant matters like that disguised the fact that this is a basic interference with the rights of the people to decide what sort of local government they want. This is the guts of the matter. I am anxious to discover what is behind this.
We heard the Home Secretary, in very fine and superior terms, propose this Measure, saying that it was on some purely administrative and non-partisan basis. We then found, when we probed a little more deeply, that although the voice may be the voice of the Home Secretary, the hand is the hand of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), that he lurks behind this. I am not certain what has gone on between the two. We are asked to be so disingenuous as to believe that no word


of communication has passed between these two gentlemen, that they have not discussed the matter, that not a word, not a nod, not a wink, not even a kiss in the dark has taken place between these two gentlemen on a matter of vital importance to the future of the Labour Party——

Sir S. McAdden: Why does my hon. Friend think that it is so surprising that Members of the Government do not speak to one another?

Mr. Grant: This is a matter on which my hon. Friend would be a much better authority than I. As to why they should not speak to one another, I do not know. I had always believed that the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Bermondsey were very much at one in that they were bitterly anxious to resist the invasions of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and his friends, but evidently that is not the case.
The truth is, obviously, that the London Labour Party is behind this proposal, which I have no hesitation at all——

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Would the hon. Member explain something? When the suggestion was made from this side that pressure was put, for example, on Sutton to change its mind, hon. Members said that this was a slur and that if it were denied that denial should be accepted. If it is denied, as it has been, that there was pressure by the London Labour Party, which caused the introduction of this Measure, why does he apply an entirely different standard and say that this denial is not to be taken at its face value?

Captain W. Elliot: Before my hon. Friend answers that, may I, as a Member with part of my constituency in Sutton, emphatically refute what the Under-Secretary of State has said——

Mr. Taverne: I did not make the allegation. I said that it had been made.

Captain Elliot: If what he said has any truth at all, would he tell us where he got this information from?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Grant: I wish to make it clear, first, that I accept entirely that what the

Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bermondsey said is completely true. He is an hon. Member for whom we have the highest respect and regard; a nice, honourable man. However, I wish to make it clear, secondly, that I do not have the slightest objection to the London Labour Party bringing pressure to bear on the Government as long as hon. Gentlemen opposite will be open and honest about it and admit that that was the position. Had there not crept into the fertile brain of the Home Secretary one chink of possibility of political advantage in introducing this Measure?
As for Sutton, I see no reason why a local authority should not change its mind. My authority did not raise any objection at the time, although, on further investigating the matter—and without having put any pressure on my authority—I have been told that had it realised, being composed of innocent and honourable men, the chicanery and gerrymandering behind this and the implications for education and other matters contained in it, it would not have made the decision it did make. That is clear and I have with me a letter from the leader of the council to that effect.
Be that as it may, my authority made its decision honestly, freely and openly, although in my constituency of Harrow it is not a matter of great concern because we have produced an eminently sensible education plan which does not conform to the dogmatism and doctrinnaire approach of the Ministry of Education, and the people in my part of the world are perfectly satisfied. We are prepared to have an election next year, or whenever one likes, to test this issue in my constituency. The guts of the matter is that if we have a difference of opinion—if, for example, we believe that comprehensive education is good or bad—we should have the courage to put it to the test and not use a facade like this Measure to perpetuate the matter.

Sir S. McAdden: Lest it be thought that I am an intruder into an exclusively London affair, I hasten to make it clear at the outset that this is not an exclusively London business. A matter of deep principle is involved and hon. Members of all parties should be keenly


interested. The serried ranks of Government supporters—now, with the departure of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), diminished by one—denote how little interest hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking in this debate. I understand that they are probably a little worried about this manoeuvre, which the Amendment seeks to correct.
I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is in his place because I listened with attention to what he said with his hand on his heart—no; we must not bring his heart into this—about the purity of the motives which had inspired the Bill.

Mr. Weitzman: "Phoney".

Sir S. McAdden: I was talking about purity. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that the purity was "phoney", that is for him to decide.
Touching on the motives of the Labour Party, the hon. and learned Gentleman gave the impression that any idea of political advantage had never entered the heads of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were interested only in administrative convenience so that the elections were efficiently run. They could not be run efficiently unless the Bill was passed and any motives of a party political nature had never entered the thoughts of the Labour Party on these great matters of local government, he said, I assure him that he would not be representing his constituency were it not for the fact that political considerations have always governed the lines followed by the London Labour Party.
I remind him that were it not for the fact that the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, when he was Mr. Herbert Morrison and leader of the London Labour Party, had transferred the building of council flats to the borough, the hon. and learned Member would not be here today. This is a political matter. We have a proposal made by the Government that we should so alter the pattern of elections as to deny the electors of London a chance to express themselves next year. This is quite outrageous.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, there are great issues involved which

ought to be discussed and decided by the electors—and decided before it is too late. I understand clearly that there is a plan afoot to impose comprehensive education willy-nilly on the whole country and particularly in London. Here is an opportunity for the electors to say whether they like the idea or not. Because they do not want to give them the chance of expressing their opinion, the Government propose to defer the elections for 12 months.
All the arguments in the world about the hon. and learned Member's dedication to democracy and the right of people to express themselves through the ballot box fall to the ground if his willingness to extend the right to vote is to be deferred in order to suit his party's pleasure.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member knows North London very well. Will he tell the Committee whether any constituencies in North London have the slightest interest in an election being held next year for voting on the question of comprehensive schools?

Sir S. McAdden: I certainly know the constituencies of North London. Indeed, for a period I was a representative on Hackney Borough Council, when it was a very much better council than it is now. When I was there taking an active interest in local affairs the people also took an interest in them. It may be that since they have had one party government in Hackney that interest has declined.

Mr. Weitzman: I asked the hon. Member a specific question and I relied on his so-called knowledge of North London to answer it. Does he for a moment suggest that if there were an election next year any of the electors would be interested in the subject of comprehensive schools? We have comprehensive schools and we know how successful they are.

Sir S. McAdden: The hon. and learned Member says that in his area there are comprehensive schools and that people are satisfied with them, but, important as it may be, the Borough of Hackney is not the whole of London. Many other parts of London, as exemplified by speeches by my hon. Friends, do not have the ardent acceptance of the party political philosophy which is peculiar to


the part of London which the hon. and learned Member represents where there is not any opposition and people do not have a chance to express themselves in the council chamber against the policy advocated.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member now has his hand on his heart.

Sir S. McAdden: Of course. What is wrong with that? Many hon. Members do it and I rather like doing it. At least I know, where my heart is. My heart is with the Opposition in resistance to the Government's proposals which we are seeking to amend. I hope that as a result of the efforts of my hon. Friends to deploy the case against the Government proposals the Amendment will be accepted.
I know that is a faint and weary hope, because the Labour Government, with their Parliamentary majority, have made up their minds, come what may, that they will force this Measure through as they have forced other disastrous Measures through. It will be left to the electors of London to decide, when they can vote, to take the opportunity of getting rid of hon. Members opposite not only in local government but in central government as well.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: This has now become an argument right outside the boundaries of London, big though London is. It now verges onto something which affects the whole electoral system of the country. One thing is vital. If we are to ask people to accept the edicts which come from a local council or from Parliament, they have to feel that the local council or Parliament has been fairly and properly elected.
If they feel that the formation of the council was brought about by some manoeuvring, though that suspicion may not be well founded, the respect, and attention and adherence they give to the decisions made by the council will be affected. The very fact that so many of my hon. Friends who are well informed on these matters have said that they feel that there is a doubt about whether the decision to postpone the elections was made impartially convinces me that it is more important than merely that the Government should get their way that the Government recognise that it is in their interests to ensure that the machinery of

election is above any suspicion. I should have thought that on those grounds the Government would have been prepared to accept our Amendments.
This is particularly so since the issue which is likely to be affected is the important one of education. Next to housing this is the topic which most closely affects family life and family thought. Education gets into every house. People are prepared to hand over decisions on foreign policy and on high economic matters to the Government and the supposedly clever people of the day, but they feel that they themselves know something about education. They have all been to school. They have children who want to go to school. They have views about the type of education they want.
The question whether comprehensive education is right or wrong does not enter into it. Many people think that it is being introduced prematurely. They think that there should be a longer period of trial before their children are expected to accept it. That is one point of view. They are doubtful about the comprehensive principle in itself. However, parents who have this doubt and who feel that comprehensive schools are not yet proved would be prepared to accept the idea, as indeed they have to in certain areas, if they felt that those who had made the decision are people who have been properly elected at elections at which that issue had been properly examined.
Two things are being put at risk—impartiality and the fairness of elections. Once people start having doubt about the impartiality or the standard of the machine, that doubt last much longer than the period of the election. If, on top of that, people have doubts about whether the form of education which their children must have has ben arrived at free from prejudice or bias, they will feel that they are being led up the garden path by their leaders in Parliament and on the local council.
The arguments for and against were expressed on Second Reading. They have been more than reinforced today. This issue goes far beyond the narrow question as to when the election shall take place. The whole system has been made suspect. The only way to get rid of the suspicion and ensure that any weaknesses that flow from this will not be long lasting is for the Government to say


that the elections will take place as they would have done before this legislation was introduced, thus removing any question that the Government are trying to gerrymander or put the thing together for narrow party reasons.
The arguments put forward by the Government as against what I think are the fundamental points which I have sought to reinforce are tiny and tawdry. It is said that the town clerks do not think that they could do it. This argument has merely to be stated for its ridiculous nature to be apparent. Of course these elections could be run. Any number of elections could be run on the same day and at the same hour if that were requored. It might be inconveneient to some, but it would be worth a great deal of inconvenience to retain people's faith in the form of elections. We know that it can be done. Town clerks are merely like the rest of us who, in doing our daily tasks, like to proceed in the easiest and most convenient way. It is not always the best way or the right way just because it is convenient to the people who must operate it.
9.15 p.m.
It does not matter if a ballot box is lost, for it is usually found again. In my constituency we lost a ballot box for about a couple of hours at the last General Election, but we found it and got the right result in the end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We had arranged for the count to take place the day after the election. I did not see why the boxes could not be gathered in the same night, minutes after the polls had closed, but we had that delay overnight and took a full day, as it turned out, to do the counting. Even when that extra time is taken it does not mean that there is freedom from some of the risks that go with running an election, and, therefore, we know that the town clerks' point is little and fiddling and does not bear examination.
There have been suggestions that there was some sort of exchange between the people who run the party on which the present Government are based. It has been said that those exchanges did not take place, but we see what goes on when we see an election on television or films, or read a book and the possibility that people have got together has a certain

realism about it, and ordinary people would feel that the exchanges might well have taken place. It is not all that wrong if they did talk to one another. If one is the leader of a party and really believes the things that the party stands for, and one is working within the proper rules. There is nothing wrong in trying to get one's point of view accepted by the people running the machine.
But in this instance the fact that it has been suggested that the Government have used this sort of discussion to bring about this change, which will affect the fundamental things of which I have spoken, is a reason why they should consider accepting the Amendments in the interests of their party, if they want to keep the party above the suspicion that they took advantage of their 100 majority in the House. If there is one issue which should not be left to the party in power, although it has the power of government, it is the machinery of government. That is why anything to do with the changing of procedures in the national sense goes through Mr. Speaker's Department, and by and large the rules are not changed until there is mutual agreement on both sides. That is the only way it can be done if one wants to hold the respect of the people whom the machine must affect at the end of the day.
Now it can be seen that, whether the basis for their feeling is good or bad, pretty well the whole Opposition are worried and suspicious about certain things, and have raised evidence which looks real, although some points have been denied by the Government. It is now seen that there is no question of this matter being mutually agreed, and in the interests of the good machinery of government the Government should now be prepared to accept the Amendments.
In the long run it will be in their best interests to do so, because if they push this through and retain their majorities in these local education authority areas parents will never feel happy. There will be a feeling of sourness, uncertainty and unhappiness in all the families in those boroughs, whereas if they go to the polls the decision is theirs. If they support comprehensive education on the scale on which it is proceeding, well and good, but if they feel cheated of being able to add their voice on this important question they will carry a sourness over


the years which will reflect very badly on right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Although I do not represent a London constituency, many present London citizens are coming to live in Peterborough under the new overspill arrangements and I want them to come feeling that they have not been driven out of London by the suspicion that there may have been cheating in the machinery of their government.

Sir D. Glover: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), I do not represent a London constituency, but I make no apology for intervening in the debate. We are discussing a great constitutional issue. It has been shown both today and on Second Reading that strong views are held on this side against the Government's present proposal. This is a squalid Measure and it is entirely unnecessary. When we are dealing with the Constitution—and this is what we do when we deal with elections and the rights of the electorate—it is always wiser to proceed by concensus.
As my hon. Friend said, this is why, when we deal with national constitutional matters in the House of Commons, electoral changes are almost always brought about after careful consideration by a conference under Mr. Speaker's chairmanship. There is always an effort to reach a concensus of view in regard to any changes in our electoral system. This has been the long established rule. The House in its wisdom always acts in this way because it is better to proceed on an agreed view when dealing with constitutional matters.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Gentleman said that it has always been the view that constitutional changes should be the subject of agreement. I take it that he means agreement by the parties. The London Government Act of 1963 made extraordinary changes in regard to the London County Council, which was destroyed, and the borough councils. It was opposed by the Labour Opposition. There was no agreed Measure. The Bill was pushed through. How does that square with what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

Sir D. Glover: It squares absolutely. I realise that we are in Committee, but I suggest that, if the hon. and learned

Gentleman wants to intervene any more, he had better get up and make another speech. He has intervened in nearly every speech made today.

Sir E. Bullus: He is our best customer.

Sir D. Glover: Yes, he has been most helpful to our argument. I am surprised that the Chief Whip has not taken him outside and put him in the Clock Tower until the end of the debate.
By his intervention this time, the hon. and learned Gentleman tries to lead me into a discourse on constitutional law and the rights of Parliament. I was talking about the question of electoral machinery, and it is on this that we have Mr. Speaker's Conference. I was emphasising the wisdom of proceeding in these matters by consensus. The hon. and learned Gentleman is far too old in politics not to know that, after a General Election, if something has been part of one's programme, however controversial one has a perfect right to bring it into law if one becomes the Government. This is the working of democracy, and no one in the Committee will dispute it.
The London Government Act may have been controversial, but no one disputes the Conservative Government's right to bring it in. It may be controversial to bring in a Bill to nationalise steel, but no one in the Committee disputes this Government's right to bring it in if they want to. But this is totally different from the machinery of elections. When one deals with the machinery of elections, one always tries to reach a consensus.
I have said that this is a squalid Measure and that it is unnecessary. If the only difficulty that the Government are trying to overcome is the difficulty, which seems more apparent than real, that returning officers and their clerks will not be able to deal with elections on one day, or they do not think that it is right to have two elections in one year and would like them to be staggered, it is surprising that the Government did not consult the Conservative and Liberal Parties.
I am quite certain that on the lines of either of these Amendments we could have had an agreed Bill that would have gone through on the nod on Second Reading. There would have been no


controversy about it. We could have come to an agreed solution which would have carried out what the Government want to achieve, and the Conservative Party would not have found it necessary to oppose it.
What should be one of the first thoughts brought by any Government to any change in the electoral system? I should have thought that if a person is returned to elected office for a given period of years we could remove the anomaly that we want to remove without extending that period of office. That is the way in which we should proceed. In other words, if the electorate returns a councillor for three years and we wanted to alter the system, we should alter the system to take effect after that councillor has done his three-year term. We should not extend his tenure of office against the wishes of the electorate.
We on this side of the Committee are offering in our Amendments two ways whereby this evil could be overcome, whereby those people who are elected for three years will serve their three-year term. When the next election takes place they would be elected on the basis of either two years or four years, but the electors—and this is important—would know when they vote for how long they are voting those people on to the council. That is very different from the House of Commons extending a councillor's term of office by 12 months, when the electorate have no say in the argument. That is a breach of our constitutional law.
I will not say for one moment that a condition might not arise when Parliament might be forced to take the action which it is taking tonight. There might be conditions which made it inevitable that some action should be taken, but in this case there is no necessity. The problem with which we are confronted does not arise until 1970. There are at least two, and probably even more, Amendments which could be made to the Bill which would produce all that the Government want to produce, but which would save this arbitrary extension of the tenure of office to the present sitting members.
As the Committee knows, I have a very unsuspicious mind. I view everyone in the light of human kindness, and

I am quite certain that the Government Front Bench never have any evil intentions. I always impute the best of intentions to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) in his speeches. I think that he always speaks with great sincerity—as, indeed, he does. But I have a feeling that this does not quite jell. Let us see what went on. We have had a sort of red herring dragged backwards and forwards in this debate, all about some clerks—we are not allowed to know who they were—who sat down together and decided that it was not a very easy way to run an election as laid down in the 1963 Bill. Then by some means, not very clear to me, the Home Office heard about their deliberations and asked them what had been going on. The clerks sent the Home Office a letter pointing out that they would find very great difficulty in having the G.L.C. elections and the borough elections on the same day.
9.30 p.m.
There is no question of the elections being on the same day next year. They are a month apart, as things stand. Even the weakest returning officer is ready to count votes again after a month's rest. He does not first need a 12-month sabbatical. The problem certainly does not exist in 1967, so that either Amendment would ensure that it did not happen in the next election or in the future after that.
Is not this just what the mysterious clerks want to happen? Do they not want what these Conservative Amendments are designed to bring about? In that case, why cannot the Government accept one of our Amendments? To do so would be a lot better than to break constitutional practice. The Amendments do not give anyone an extended term of office. The electors would know exactly for how long they were returning councillors. Why do the Government not accept one of our proposals?
If they do not accept one of these Amendments they must have some other reason. Logic is so heavily on our side that my mind wonders what is going on behind the scenes. What is that great man the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) up to? What has that great Tammany Hall boss been thinking about in recent months?

Mr. Mellish: I am not as great as the hon. Gentleman thinks I am.

Sir D. Glover: I am sure that the hon. Member underrates himself, and that he has much more power and influence than he says. And I am glad of that, because I think that he is one of the nicest Members on the Government Front Bench—[Laughter.] I have to balance the record after the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
What is the reason behind this move? Let us be quite honest and brutally frank. This is political jobbery in the worst possible form. That is the only reason why the Bill has been brought in. The purpose is blatantly to achieve a political objective by a roundabout means. The Government know that there is a good deal of controversy going on about comprehensive education. I shall not go into a long spiel about the rights and wrongs, the virtues and vices, the strengths and weaknesses of comprehensive education, but I do say that the electors are the people who have the right to decide that issue.
From the boroughs where the elections are to be put off, schemes are going to the Secretary of State which will be approved by July of next year. The Government are thereby effectively depriving the London electorate—and let us not forget that it is one-fifth of the electorate of Great Britain—of any chance of expressing their views on this very important matter to the authority responsible for education. If hon. Members opposite think that this step will, in the long run, be to their advantage, I regret to inform them that one can fool some of the public all the time but one cannot fool the lot. They will know which side is gerrymandering.
The Home Secretary has built up a great reputation since his party got power. I could have thought of a lot of adjectives for him—that he was arrogant, or that he was supercilious, that he was clever, or that he had a great future. The one label which, up to now, I would not have given him would have been a squalid and also a fiddling politician.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at this stage, to think what he is doing. He has read the Ecomomist. He knows its views. He is besmirching what is becoming a great reputation. If he allows

the Bill to go through without accepting the Amendment, his reputation will not be as high tomorrow as it was at the beginning of today.

Mr. Hogg: I want to take the opportunity to make an appeal to the Home Secretary. He explained to me that he had preoccupations today which have made his visits to the Chamber necessarily fleeting, and I make no complaint about that. I know what those preoccupations are and that he intends absolutely no discourtesy to the Committee by his absences. But those absences have had one most unfortunate result, although no doubt fortuitous. He has not been able to hear the course of this debate, except perhaps from the reports he has had from his colleagues, and I beg of him now to take the Amendment rather more seriously than the Government have so far been prepared to do.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has just said is no more than the truth. This is a case where the honour of the Government is, we believe, in jeopardy, and it can be redeemed. I think that the Home Secretary's own political reputation is in jeopardy, and it can be redeemed because there is only one point at issue in the Amendment. It is not whether the borough elections are held on the same day or in the same year as the Greater London Council elections. We have been prepared to give him that. Many of us would agree with him, though not all of us. But it is not an issue of principle which need divide us.
The only issue in the Amendment is whether the borough elections shall be held in 1967 as the law at present provides or whether they are to be postponed by Act of Parliament—in other words, whether the right hon. Gentleman is to use the brute force of his Parliamentary majority to destroy the rights of the voters in London to vote this year as the law provides or whether he is going to postpone it.
Of course, we recognise—and I must say this to him, as I said it on Second Reading—that occasions of great necessity can occur when postponement is justified. But the need for it needs to be made out. This is not a matter of cynicism; it is a matter of principle.
I do not care what the results of elections in 1967 in the boroughs would be so far as this point is concerned. It is a question of principle, and the Government, by holding out the whole of today and giving us banal and stereotyped answers, have been fighting for only one point, and that is at all costs to postpone the elections for which the law provides.
I told the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading that I thought that his argument was disingenuous. I believe that it is. He fought his whole case on Second Reading on the need to stagger the elections of the Greater London Council and the boroughs so as to put them in different years. I told him that this was not the point and that he knew it was not. If anybody doubts that his whole speech was a disingenuous piece of advocacy, one only need look at the effect upon his hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who genuinely believed, and committed himself to the view, that the right hon. Gentleman was saying that the elections would take place on the same day this coming year.
Of course, if one looks at the small print of the right hon. Gentleman's speech one will see that he was not under a misapprehension, but that was the effect he had on his colleagues, that was the effect he had on the B.B.C. and on numerous newspapers. He argued a point which was not at issue in order to secure one which was a matter of principle against the whole weight of reason. No reason has been put forward today for postponing the elections of 1967 which bears the smallest resemblance to being convincing.
The argument about the smallness of the poll is relevant not to that point but to the staggering of the elections. Various other arguments which have been put forward—by the town clerks, for example —are relevant to the staggering of elections but not to this point. The question whether the Committee, whose name I have forgotten, was or was not unanimous is wholly irrelevant to this point whatever the merits may have been. The question is why the right hon. Gentleman sticks at all costs in favour of postponing the life of an electoral body one year beyond what the law provides.
The only argument of the smallest relevance which has been put forward on the other side of the Committee during the entire debate from about 3.30 this afternoon has been that the electors might find it inconvenient to vote twice at intervals of a month in the course of 1967. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that outside London there is not a place in England where this does not happen. He knows that in 1955 three elections had to be held, culminating in a General Election. If it had any relevance, it would be false; and even if it were true, it is not a consideration which a reputable public man should put forward in favour of postponing an election, because if democracy means anything it means that the electors have a duty and a responsibility to vote, even when it is slightly inconvenient for them to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman rather puts himself forward as a Sir Galahad in this matter. He is very touchy when people attack his honour, but I assure him that his honour is at stake in this debate. If he does not get up with the responsibility which is his and allow the Amendment, his honour will have been seriously blemished.
The right hon. Gentleman must recognise this. Throughout the debate we have had to put up with junior Ministers—junior Ministers whom we respect and whom we like, but junior Ministers who, we know, have no authority to accept the Amendment. This is the only moment, practically speaking, during the course of the debate when there has been sitting on the Treasury Bench a senior Minister with the authority to do the honourable and proper thing and let us have our way on the only point which matters. Let it be said at once that if the right hon. Gentleman gives way on this point—if he does not destroy democracy in London boroughs in 1967 and gives way to the minority for once, but also to reason—he can have the Bill without further debate now.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hoggrose——

Mr. Ian Macleod: Intolerable.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

The Chairman: Order. I was about to say that it seems to me that there are other hon. Members who wish to address argument to the Committee before the Committee comes to a decision. Therefore, I do not think that I ought at this stage to accept a Motion for the Closure.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In view of that, Sir Eric, will you allow me to apologise? I am very sorry indeed.

9.45 p.m

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I have been in and out of the Chamber several times today, wanting to take part in the debate, but have not yet had an opportunity so to do. I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on this important subject.
Listening to the earlier part of the debate, it seemed to me that the Government were in considerable difficulty and that it arose because two elections, for the Greater London Council and the borough councils, would clash in 1970. It seemed to me that the Government had a case which needed proper consideration. I went to the Library to think about the problem and I found an easy solution. It was for the Greater London Council election to be held in 1967, as originally proposed, and for the borough council elections also to be held in 1967, but a month later, the borough councils being elected for only two years.
When I returned to the Chamber, I found that this was exactly the Amendment which my right hon. Friends were putting forward. It seemed to me that this was a most reasonable compromise in this difficult situation and I cannot see why the Government cannot accept the compromise which is the first of the Conservative Party Amendments.
The Under-Secretary and the Minister of State have told us that we cannot have two local elections in one year. But when my constituency of Twickenham was part of Middlesex we had two elections in one year as a matter of course. We had the local borough council elections and a month later we had the Middlesex County Council elections. There was absolutely no difficulty about it. Anyone who cares to telephone my town clerk tonight can reassure himself that that was the normal practice in

Middlesex and that there was no difficulty. I therefore cannot see why the Home Secretary——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the Home Secretary is now leaving the Chamber. Can he use his time in making this appeal to ask the Home Secretary to reply to the personal appeal made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am assuming that the Home Secretary will reply to the debate. It has been a very important debate, in which about 20 speakers have taken part and it is the Home Secretary's duty to reply. My right hon. and learned Friend made a forceful appeal to him, appealing to his honour, and, of course, as a man of honour the Home Secretary must reply to the debate. I imagine that that was one of the reasons which lead you, Sir Eric, not to accept the Motion for the Closure put forward by the Chief Whip.
It is perfectly possible to have two elections in one year and my constituents are actually waiting to do so. First, they want to have the borough council elections to support their Conservative councillors and, in particular, to show that they support them in their fight against the Government and against the proposals for the forcible introduction of comprehensive schooling in Twickenham and Richmond-upon-Thames. The electors are with the councillors in their fight against the Government.
Secondly, they want the opportunity in 1967 to give the Government a kick in the pants, because they are upset by everything which is going on on the national scene and the local elections will be the one opportunity which they will have in 1967 to register their displeasure with the Government. They also want to get rid of Labour control at County Hall, where Labour has been in power for 33 years. My constituents are fully seized that it is time that those 33 wasted years came to an end and they are determined on 13th April to turn out the Labour government of London for all time. Those are three good reasons why they particularly want to have the borough and the G.L.C. elections in 1967.
As I said, I went into the Library with the idea of finding a compromise solution which might get the Government out of their difficulty. I reached the conclusion which had occurred to my right hon. Friends, and I cannot see why the Government cannot accept this reasonable compromise.
I hope that the Home Secretary has left the Chamber to think about this problem and will return and tell us that he accepts this reasonable compromise to his difficulties.

Mr. Iremonger: I do not think that I speak only for my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that it is a matter of very great concern to us that the Home Secretary, whom we understand was not able to be here before, has left the Committee. I do not want to do him an injustice. I should like to hope that he has gone to confer with his right hon. Friends about the response which he should make to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).
I do not think that I am alone in taking this matter very seriously. I hope that there are right hon. and hon. Members opposite who take it very seriously. It has been very evident to us on this side of the Committee that the benches opposite have been absolutely empty all through the day. That does great credit to hon. Members opposite, because I think that they must have found it very painful that their Front Bench spokesmen could not attempt to meet the one central argument which my right hon. Friend made. It must have been very painful for junior Ministers to sit here knowing that they were mouthpieces of the Department, that their chief was absent and that they might not be able to impress on him the seriousness of the argument put forward.
I do not blame supporters of the Government for absenting themselves from this shameful scene. I hope that those who have come here will lend their voices in defence of the principle of democratic elections which we are putting forward. This is a serious matter. I perfectly well understand that Governments take the view that Oppositions are inclined to be captious. I perfectly well understand that the right hon. and hon. Members

responsible for managing Government business find it extremely tedious and tiresome when the Opposition protract the business at what may seem to them to be undue length.

Mr. Archie Manuel: What has this speech to do with the Amendment?

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member asks what this speech has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Gentleman has just arrived.

Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). My speech has something to do with the Amendment; it has something to do with the Bill. But it has something to do with Scotland as well. We are debating a principle which applies to London, but it applies no less to the rest of England, to Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, where they know something about these things.

Mr. Manuel: About London government?

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member who intervenes in this vocal way, even if he is sitting down, has made a very revealing intervention. He said, "About London government?" This Bill is not about London government; it is about democracy.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member made reference to Scotland. I was indicating that there was nothing in the London Government Bill concerning Scotland, and I think that I am correct in that.

Mr. Iremonger: I believe that the Committee is seized of the point, even if the hon. Gentleman is not. I do not want, although I would have very good excuse if I did, to take the hon. Gentleman through the argument again step by step. I should be wasting the time of the Committee if I did. Although I do not want to spare the Committee, although I shall be glad to keep it here if necessary all night, I am not anxious to indulge in tedious repetition or anxious to waste its time. I want to try to get the Committee to see this as a serious matter, but I do not think that one ought to waste time on the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. It is with his right


hon. Friend the Home Secretary that we should be concerned.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Hogg: Gone on television.

Mr. Iremonger: I hope that he has gone to see the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hogg: He has gone on television.

Mr. Iremonger: That may not be a bad thing, because perhaps it might be as well that more people than saw my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) the other night should realise what is cooking in this House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West told the Committee earlier in the debate, what is being done here now could be done to Parliament itself, and a party which accepted the principle in this Bill would have no moral strength in arguing against the principle applied to Parliament. In fact, it would be able to quote this Bill as a precedent, as being the will of Parliament, to apply to the extension of the life of Parliament itself. The life of Parliament has been extended in the past, and perhaps the question of precedents ought to be examined, because they have been called in issue in support of the Government's arguments that this Bill is not in any way unique or unconstitutional.
I think that even the Government would say that the precedents of extending Parliament during the last war are hardly relevant, but it has been argued that a precedent was created when the elections for the counties, parts of which were brought into Greater London, were extended for a year under the London Government Act, 1963—the county council elections for Essex, Surrey, Middlesex and Kent—but there is this very important distinction which I hope will be accepted by the Committee as putting this Bill into a totally different class.
In the first place, the elections which were deferred did not deprive the electors within Greater London of the

opportunity to express their views on the way they should be governed, because other elections took place to the new authorities at the time when the old elections should have taken place. I must say that there is a difficulty in this argument in that the outer parts of Essex, Kent, and the other counties concerned had to carry on with their old councils for a year—and I think that it would be unfrank and dishonest not to recognise that—but this was not raised at the time, and there was not at that time, as there is now in London, one great overriding political issue which was able to be deferred by deferring the elections.

Sir D. Glover: If those elections had taken place everybody would have had to go to the trouble of voting and they would have been in office for only 12 months because the authority was going to cease to exist.

Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I think that what he said fortifies my argument still further.
I wanted to expand on this point of a distinction concerning the existence now in the boroughs whose elections are being deferred of a major political issue which concerns as closely as any of the matters for which local authorities are responsible the needs, the hopes, and the desires of the electorate, namely, the issue of the enforcement of schemes of comprehensive education upon the London boroughs.
It may well be that in many boroughs this is not an issue upon which the electorate is seriously divided. The point is that there may be a number of boroughs in which the electorate wish to express a view and might well return a council which would put forward a different view to that of the council now in office, a view which would be acceptable to the Government and which would——

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left to Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on the London Government Bill may be entered upon and proceeded

with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 134.

Division No. 211.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gardner, Tony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Alldritt, Walter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allen, Scholefield
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Anderson, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Atkinson, Norman, (Tottenham)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Norwood, Christopher


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Oakes, Gordon


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric


Beaney, Alan
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
O'Malley, Brian


Bence, Cyril
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boardman, H.
Haseldine, Norman
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boston, Terence
Heffer, Eric S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Henig, Stanley
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horner, John
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, R. W, (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Randall, Harry


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath(
Redhead, Edward


Cant, R. B.
Howie, W.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
Hoy, James
Richard, Ivor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Hynd, John
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rose, Paul


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ryan, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. John (Deptford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Dewar, Donald
Ledger, Ron
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dickens, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Taverne, Dick


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Thornton, Ernest


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lubbock, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Wallace, George


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Weitzman, David


Ensor, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitaker, Ben


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Whitlock, William


Finch, Harold
Mahon, Simon (Booth)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Floud, Bernard
Mapp, Charles
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Winnick, David


Ford, Ben
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Forrester, John
Mason, Roy
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fowler, Gerry
Mellish, Robert
Yates, Victor


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, J. J.



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Fitch and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Calpern, Sir Myer
Molloy, William





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, W. H. K.
Gurden, Harold
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Batstord, Brian
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heseltine, Michael
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp; M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jopling, Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cooke, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cordle, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Talbot, John E.


Corfield, F. V.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Tilney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Worsley, Marcus


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Miscampbell, Norman
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector



Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn Sir Richard
Murton, Oscar
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Blaker.


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Orders of the Day — LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Iremonger: We on this side of the Committee have suffered a defeat in the Lobby, but we are a democratic party. We could not put off the Division, but we did not funk it. We have to shoulder the burden of further debate this evening, although it would have been much preferable to have taken this on many occasions on successive days so that the whole grisly implication of this Amendment and the ones being debated with it could have been considered one by one by every one of my hon. Friends and the Committee as a whole.
We shall have to accept that we must carry on, if necessary, for a few minutes and ask the Committee once more, as seriously as ever, to accept these Amendments, preferably the one to which my name has been put, but my right hon.

Friend's Amendment would do at a pinch. When we were interrupted by the Division, I was about to direct the attention of the Committee to the important difference between the postponement of this election and the postponement of any other election in recorded history since the eighteenth century, when there was the very close parallel in the Septennial Act to which my right hon. Friend drew attention.
The very important distinction is that in many London Boroughs there is great discontent about the proposal of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to force the local education authority to adopt systems of comprehensive secondary education with which many parents disagree.
10.15 p.m.
My hon. Friends have been a little suspicious. They have accused the hon. Member for Bermondsey, as Chairman of the London Labour Party, of saying to the


Home Secretary, "Let us not have the elections this year, because we might lose them. Could not we find an excuse for deferring them, at least for a year?" The hon. Member for Bermondsey has denied this. We accept his denial. [Laughter.] I do, because I shall submit that there is another explanation. It was not the hon. Member for Bermondsey at all.

An Hon. Member: It was his agent.

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman knew about it, but he did not do anything. It was not anything so subtle as his agent. It was much more direct, much more political, much more concerned with the central policies of the Government. The right hon. Member who went to the Home Secretary has not been near the Chamber all the time the Bill has been being discussed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wiggery?"] It was not the Paymaster-General, though he is in it up to the neck. He did not do anything about it. Another suggestion is that it was the Leader of the House, but it was not him. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had wanted to discredit the Government, he could not have thought up any more subtle allegation than that. It was not the Leader of the House, although he is in it up to the neck. It was the Secretary of State for Education and Science who did this.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Iremonger: He said to the Home Secretary, "This one year will cover the point of no-return for the systems of reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines in many London boroughs. If we have the elections now, we may lose some London boroughs, which may then put up some schemes of which I do not approve but which I shall not be able to overbear without introducing legislation", as he has already threatened to do, but he would rather get his minions to do it for him. Therefore, he asked the Home Secretary if he could have a year's grace in which this could be done.
That is the reason, far more subtle and, in a way, far more sinister than any blundering machinations by the hon. Member for Bermondsey who, in any case, is far too innocent to have been able to carry this through. The hon.

Gentleman is so simple he would not have been able to understand the plot. He was capable of going on television without even having understood what the Bill was about, let alone having read the speech of the Home Secretary, and saying to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that it was not a question of having, or that it was—I forget which it was. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman got it wrong.

Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend has not got it at all.

Mr. Iremonger: I am not responsible for it. I realise that this is nothing to do with the central issue.

Mr. Mellish: On the question of the television broadcast, of which so much has been made, it must go on record that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and I were on for 35 minutes, instead of being on for ten minutes, because they decided to cut out the Annie Ross and Dead Sea Scrolls. They also decided to cut out a discussion with the script writer because the entertainment value, particularly that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was so good.

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman was not exactly unfunny, according to the reports I have had. But they have both assured for themselves a career with Billy Cotton when they lose their seats. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite must not be impatient. They have just voted to go on. We were all for closing this up now and resuming later, and this is bound to take a certain amount of time. It is not a matter which can be rushed.
I was embarking on an explanation of what underlay the Bill, and the good-humoured raillery of hon. Gentlemen opposite should not deceive the Committee into taking this matter lightly, because whatever the atmosphere in the Committee at this time of night this still remains an extremely important constitutional issue. There has been something afoot which it would be a little pedantic to say was not gerrymandering, as the right hon. Lady says. Whoever was responsible, and my own view was that it was the Minister of Education, it


was a shameful thing to do. Whoever was responsible for putting it up to the Home Secretary, it was a shameful thing on his part to accept it. If it was not shameful in the sense that he knew what was up and accepted it, it was shameful that he should be so guileless and innocent as to allow it to go through under his nose.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: He could still put it right.

Mr. Iremonger: My hon. Friend has anticipated the main burden of my argument and that of my right hon. Friend. The Home Secretary can put this right in the Committee. He is now appearing on television explaining the Criminal Justice Bill. There is more crime and injustice in this Bill than anything he can——

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Sir Eric. The hon. Gentleman who is regaling the House with such fun and frivolity keeps saying that we are discussing this Bill. Would you tell him that he has forgotten the place. We have already had the Second Reading and we are dealing with Clause 1, Amendment No. I, at the Committee stage.

The Chairman: I understood that the hon. Member was trying to address himself to teat Amendment.

Mr. Iremonger: I think, Sir Eric, that the Committee is distressed that the hon. Member should not be fully seized of the argument, so perhaps we had better take him through it. I did not want to do that. I voted to close down the proceedings for today, and a little earlier I said that I thought that the Committee should be spared taking the hon. Member through the whole argument again, but apparently he is a glutton for punishment.
The Bill is about postponing elections; the Amendment is about postponing elections; I am talking about postponing elections, and I see that the hon. Member has got that. I thought, Sir Eric, that I should supplement the very lucid and full explanation you gave the hon. Gentleman, because, having tried myself, I know that it is no use doing it once or twice, and that a third time is necessary. But now I really think that he has it.
We are talking about the principle of postponing elections, which is in the Amendment and was naturally in the Bill. Therefore, we are rightly concerned to know why this unprecedented and highly unconstitutional step was taken by the Home Secretary, and how it could possibly come about that he did not see that it was a political stratagem or, if he did see that it was a political stratagem, how he could possibly have lent himself to such a thing. I was saying that he is not with us because he is discussing the Criminal Justice Bill on television, but we hope that he will be back soon.
It would be disgraceful if he did not come back after his own supporters had voted for the debate to go on so that we should not in the end be without him. We are keeping the debate going for him at the instigation of the Patronage Secretary himself, who whipped his supporters in to keep the proceedings going. It could have been for no other reason except that the Home Secretary should come back. Or is that wrong? The Chief Whip tried earlier to stop the Home Secretary getting in when he tried to move the Closure. I hope that we misjudge him on that. I am sure that either he or one of his assistant Leaders of the Treasury will be on the telephone to the television studios to say——

Sir D. Glover: Put on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Mr. Iremonger: That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. After all, they took off the Dead Sea Scrolls for one bit of skulduggery and they can put them on for another. It will slot in nicely. They will be able to say, "Last time, we were going to discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls but we could not do that because we had to discuss the London Government Bill", and now they will be able to say, "We were going to discuss the Criminal Justice Bill, but we shall have to discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls because the Home Secretary is wanted to do his duty in the House of Commons".
No wonder people talk of televising the House. Ministers spend their whole time on television. They ought to be here answering the Committee. The Home Secretary should not have been able to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Macleod) and contemplate for a moment


gadding off to talk on the television about a frivolous Bill to deal with social inadequates, when the absolute fabric of our democracy is being undermined.
I do not underrate the importance of crime and penal treatment. I spent two years on the abortive Royal Commission on the Penal System. I know how long the thing takes and I know how concerned the Home Secretary is in it. But the right hon. Gentleman's duty is to be here. It is his duty to answer for the Bill which he has brought in. He will have no other opportunity to meet the central point which we have made. He avoided meeting it on Second Reading. He heard it put to him in Committee today. Having heard it, he slipped out, with an agreeable and charming self-deprecatory smile as much as to say, "You know how it is, but I am the Home Secretary and I have to go off to talk on the television. Major issues are being raised in the House, but you cannot expect me to answer for those, although my honour, the honour of my Government, and all the constitutional history of this country are at stake. I have to go and talk on television about my Bill and get the Liberal vote".

Hon. Members: Where are they?

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order, Sir Eric. While the Liberal

Members are being sought, may I raise with you a point of order concerning the proceedings of Standing Committee D. The corridors outside the Committee room are now littered with beds which are in no way needed by members of the Committee. They are just a nuisance and a reflection upon our zeal. May I ask you to order their removal at once?

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I have no jurisdiction over Standing Committee D.

Sir John Eden: Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. It should be emphasised that it appears that the beds have been specifically requested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power for the convenience of Labour members of the Committee. This would seem to be a wholly——

The Chairman: Order. It is not a point of order which can be raised in this Committee.

Mr. Peyton: But, Sir Eric——

The Chairman: Order. The remedy must be taken in the Standing Committee.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: We have been informed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee, Sir Eric, that he has no jurisdiction outside the doors of the Committee Room. Therefore, we are obliged to come to you for help.

The Chairman: It is not a matter I can deal with in this Committee. The hon. Member can consult Mr. Speaker, or the Services Committee, but I cannot deal with the matter in this Committee. It is not a point of order that can be raised in this debate, and it ought not to be pursued to interrupt the debate in which we are now engaged.

Sir J. Eden: One further reference, if I may, Sir Eric. This is one of the difficulties we have in gaining access to the Standing Committee and to the rooms adjacent to that in which the Standing Committee is sitting upstairs. You will know that in that Committee we are debating the Iron and Steel Bill, and it is for consideration whether those are steel beds, or whether they are iron beds, or whether——

The Chairman: Order. I have said that is not matter which can be raised in this Committee.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Peytonrose——

The Chairman: Order. On the other hand, I can inform the hon. Member that I have just been informed that Mr. Speaker has given permission for the beds to be placed there.

Mr. Iremonger: I was voicing the Committee's astonishment at the effrontery of the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, in coming into this debate. He had had the grace, and his right hon. Friend had the grace, to hide his head, because he is part of the real motive behind the Bill. The Minister of State will not be aware of the very grave charges which have been made against him. He knows perfectly well he is anxious to see this Bill go through. He knows perfectly well what the merit of it is for him. He knows that if this Bill goes through every London borough which objects to the scheme which he wants it to adopt has anything up to a year in which to put

up another scheme which he will then have to turn down. He wants an extra year so that it will be impossible then to unscramble the scheme which the sitting Labour council will have frozen for all time on the education authority.
I am not concerned to argue the merits of comprehensive education as such, but it these elections are postponed, as the Bill proposes that they should be, then many London boroughs will have to adapt schemes of comprehensive education which they believe are wasteful. They believe that in adapting systems of secondary education based upon grammar and secondary schools in different places, ofen some way apart, a system of education in which there is no distinction between secondary modern and grammar schools, resources of money, in making the physical adaptations, of teachers, in the reorganisation, and of energy will be wasted. Therefore, this concerns the Minister of State as well as the Home Secretary, although in far less profound a way. He ought to be concerned to see that this Bill is going to postpone elections in which, otherwise, the electors of the boroughs will have been able to express their views on the schemes then under consideration.
Again, I realise that to discuss the details of comprehensive education and the merits of it would be out of order on this Bill——

The Chairman: The hon. Member is quite right.

Mr. Iremonger: I am eschewing with the utmost distaste any thought of further examining the merits or demerits of comprehensive education, but I am bound to say on this Amendment, having regard to the date of the elections, that the postponed elections will mean that the electorate will not be able to consider one very important aspect of the proposals of the Government and of the boroughs for compulsorily freezing systems of comprehensive education upon parents and children.
It is this. Quite apart from being wasteful, appropriate education is inspired, according to the sincere belief of a great many electors in the boroughs concerned, not by any educational criteria, but by a fundamental, vindictive dislike of excellence on the part of the


party opposite. The electorate feel that if these elections are postponed, they will be unable to express to the party opposite, or the incumbents of the town hall, the fact that in destroying the present system of secondary education their councillors are, in fact, destroying a system which accepts that different natures and different kinds of talent need different kinds of fostering in different kinds of educational establishments.
There is a third aspect of comprehensive education which I will not examine in itself, but which the date of this election brings forcibly to our notice. If we are to defer these elections, we will, in fact, be insulting the whole system of local government. Many hon. Members are approached by their constituents on matters which are primarily the concern of the council. I know that some hon. Members accept these approaches and even welcome them. I think myself that it is extremely dishonest to do what many hon. Members are tempted to do, which is to take a letter from a constituent on, say, the subject of housing, and then make inquiries with the housing manager at the town hall and find that the constituent is very near the top of the housing list——

Mrs. Lena Jeger: On a point of order. It may be due to the limitations of my boarding school education, but I cannot see that either housing or education are referred to in the Amendment before the committee.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member will appreciate that there are subsequent Amendments dealing specifically with education and housing, and that it would be convenient to defer his argument until those Amendments are reached.

Captain W. Elliot: On a point of order. The hon. Lady mentioned my hon. Friend's reference to the Amendment, but I understood that in the beginning you called Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9, Sir Eric. The hon. Lady has only just entered the Committee, and I do not expect that she knew this. Can you say whether I am right? The hon. Lady would then be quite satisfied.

The Chairman: None of the subsequent Amendments deal specifically with either education or housing.

Mr. lremonger: I do not wish to try your patience, Sir Eric, and, therefore, the specific subjects of education and housing must not be touched upon in any detail. I merely say that local authority powers are powers which ought to be exercised by local authorities. They are powers which many hon. Members are only too prone to pretend that they are able to usurp. It is very easy to undermine the authority of local councils by pretending that Members of Parliament have some power to influence the way in which councils carry out their responsibilities.
There could be no more eloquent gesture of contempt of local government by the House of Commons than to remove from the electorate the right and the duty that they have to vote for their councillors at the end of the term for which they were elected, or, if they are not satisfied with them, to vote for others to take their place.
I have been concerned for a long time about the loss of effectiveness of local government and the way in which local councillors are disregarded by their electorate, who believe that Parliament and the central Government are the authorities which can properly discharge the functions that we have put upon their local representatives. We should be encouraging local councillors to take their responsibilities seriously and making certain that, when elected, they are consciously aware of their responsibilities to the electorate, that they will have to answer to them after three years and cannot go round to the back door to a friendly Home Secretary or any other channel to get the election put off for another year. Otherwise, the electorate will be further confirmed in the belief that local government is a sham.
We have always said that local government should be both truly local and truly government. The Bill strikes at the root of local government just as effectively as it strikes at the root of Parliamentary democracy because it is concerned with the holding of elections, in deceiving people about the rights they will have to vote according to the rules made by this House.
Therefore, whatever view one takes of individual local authority powers and the exercise of them in the London boroughs, it is both democratically and, from the point of view of most of the local authorities, of fundamental significance that the Bill is now before this Committee, that the Home Secretary, who has heard the charge made against him, has left the Chamber and is obviously relying on the Patronage Secretary to carry this disgraceful Bill through without even having the grace to answer the main charge against him.
It cannot help striking us on this side that the Government are about to run the economy into total ruin in order to uphold the principle of one man one vote in Rhodesia—votes for 1½ million Africans, but none for 5½ million Londoners. It does not fail to occur to us as well that if it is so very important not to have elections on the same day or in the same year there is another way round—to postpone the G.L.C. elections, although that would be disgraceful enough. But it is interesting to note that this idea was not adopted by the Government.
Instead, the Government relied on their friends at County Hall to introduce, at £1½ million a year, a propaganda campaign at the ratepayers expense in order to have the G.L.C. elections in 1967. I can understand that it would have been rather more difficult to have got into operation in all the London boroughs a propaganda organisation such as that at County Hall and to rely on that to pull each borough within their stable. Far more simple to put all the propaganda effort into County Hall, get the G.L.C. elections this year and rely on the Home Secretary to postpone the elections in the boroughs.
It has been said by his friends that the Home Secretary did not know what was being done, that this was entirely innocent on his part, that he was the man playing the piano downstairs who did not know what went on upstairs. He may have observed, as he sat there at the keys, with his back to the room, the shadows cast across the music by sinister figure flitting from the front door to the stairs, but who was he to say they were sinister? They might have been entirely innocent people visiting an innocent establishment and his engagement was only to play the music.

Mr. Hogg: He has not done much of that tonight.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Iremonger: It is quite possible that he was only playing the piano upstairs. I am prepared to accept that. If the Home Secretary did not know what was being done at half-past nine this evening, he knew by 10 o'clock, because my right hon. Friend told him. He then slunk away and his right hon. Friend tried to closure the debate. We tried to hold the fort for him and then we decided that, since it was 10 o'clock and we could not expect him then, we had better pack up and give him a chance on another day.
Then the Patronage Secretary had other thoughts. Some of his hon. Friends had not yet spoken and they are looking forward to expressing their views. If they do not speak it is because they are so shamed. It is either shame or loyalty and if it is loyalty it is misplaced, because there is a higher loyalty than that to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Labour Party. It is loyalty to the democratic system.

Sir Barnett Janner: On a point of order. I have been trying to find out what the hon. Member is speaking about and have discovered that he is attempting to say a few things which appear to be entirely out of order. In all seriousness, what has what he is saying got to do with what we are discussing?

The Chairman: As I have said, I thought that the hon. Member was trying to address himself to the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I think that my hon. Friend is being unfair to the Patronage Secretary. I am sure that the Patronage Secretary, when he insisted that we went on with the debate, was probably the only Member in the Chamber who knew the movements of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He probably knows whether he is or is not returning to the Committee. The Committee has a right to know at this stage.

Mr. Iremonger: We would not want to be unfair to the Patronage Secretary. We would not expect him to talk in this Committee. He knows too much, and, by convention, he does not talk, but no doubt


he will be able to arrange for the information to be given to us from a suitable quarter. I think that my hon. Friend's intervention was extremely well-timed. We were interrupted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner)——

Mr. Hogg: He has strayed in the road.

Mr. Iremonger: The Committee sympathises with the hon. Gentleman. He has had a very busy day. He has not been able to hear the argument. On second thoughts, it is just as well that we lost the Division and went on, because many hon. Members obviously did not understand what it was all about.

The Chairman: Order. It would help the Committee if the hon. Member would address himself to the Amendment.

Sir Edward Brown (Bath): I have been trying to follow the argument. I should like to hear again from my hon. Friend the reasons for the postponement of the election. Can he help me again on that?

Mr. David Griffiths: On a point of order. With due respect to you, Sir Eric, may I point out that for the last 20 minutes the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has not spoken with any relevance to the Amendment? [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I have been urging the hon. Member to confine his remarks to what is relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: For a long time we have been listening to the hon. Member and others before him and as far as most of us are concerned—those of us who have been concerned with Committee stages of Bills and have served on Committees —those hon. Members have been entirely out of order. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has obviously been out of order——

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Manuel: I have not finished yet.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must allow me to judge what is in order.

Mr. Manuel: I want to intimate to you, Sir Eric, that my hon. Friends and

I should not be treated as we have been, and we shall need to consider taking appropriate action.

Mr. Iremonger: It would be impertinent for me to say that I am on your side, Sir Eric. I think that your nice discernment of the precise degree to which I have directed my remarks to the Amendment and the Bill has been just right. Had you not given me the guidance you have I might have been tempted to stray a little, but I think that your judgment has been "spot on", in reference to everything I have said.

Mr. David Griffiths: Fetch television in.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Iremonger: At this hour of the night a little ebullience is understandable. I hope that hon. Members opposite do not think that my hon. Friends and I are disposed to take this matter lightly. If we think it right to fall in with the wishes of the Government, and carry on with the debate now and let it be a full debate, because we wish to hear from hon. Members opposite, that does not detract in the least from the seriousness with which my hon. Friends and I treat this matter, or from the support we give my right hon. Friend in what he said.
What the Government are doing is disgraceful. It is a shameful betrayal of the principles of democracy. This is a matter in which the honour of the Home Secretary and the Government is at stake. This is a Bill which we propose to fight line by line, however long it takes. It is a Bill the principles of which must be utterly rejected by our people. If the Committee allows the Bill to go through, it will redound eternally to the discredit of the right hon. Gentleman and of his Government.
We propose to support these Amendments and to fight the Bill to the very end and to attempt to repeal it, if we can, when hon. Members opposite have come to a proper sense of where their true duty lies.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Membersrose——

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 133.

Division No. 212.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Alldritt, Walter
Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Allen, Scholefield
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William


Anderson, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Archer, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Moyle, Roland


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Norwood, Christopher


Bence, Cyril
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Oakes, Gordon


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Binns, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Boardman, H.
Haseldine, Norman
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Palmer, Arthur


Boston, Terence
Heffer, Eric S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Henig, Stanley
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Horner, John
Perry, George H, (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Redhead, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoy, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rose, Paul


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ryan, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Dewar, Donald
Ledger, Ron
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dickens, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Taverne, Dick


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Thornton, Ernest


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lubbock, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'n)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Wallace, George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Weitzman, David


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Wellbeloved, James


Ensor, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitaker, Ben


Evane, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Manuel, Archie
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Floud, Bernard
Mapp, Charles
Winnick, David


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ford, Ben
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Forrester, John
Mason, Roy
Yates, Victor


Fowler, Gerry
Mayhew, Christopher



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Mr. R. W. Brown and Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian




Bell, Ronald
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Clark, Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Kirk, Peter
Smith, John


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony


Cordie, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Corfield, F. V.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crawley, Aldan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Eden, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Tilney, John


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Maginnis, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
More, Jasper



Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. George Younger and


Hamilton, Marquees of (Fermanagh)
Nott, John
Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 217, Noes 133.

Division No. 213.]
AYES
[11.6 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Concannon, J. D.
Floud, Bernard


Alldritt, Walter
Conlan, Bernard
Foley, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ford, Ben


Anderson, Donald
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Archer, Peter
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fowler, Gerry


Armstrong, Ernest
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tam
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Freeson, Reginald


Baxter, William
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gardner, Tony


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bence, Cyril
Dempsey, James
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dewar, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dickens, James
Gregory, Arnold


Binns, John
Dobson, Ray
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Dunn, James A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Boardman, H.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Boston, Terence
Eadie, Alex
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edelman, Maurice
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Harming, William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hannan, William


Brooks, Edwin
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, John
Haseldine, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David
Hazell, Bert


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ensor, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Henig, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hooley, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
Horner, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fernyhough, E.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Chapman, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)




Howie, W.
Mapp, Charles
Rose, Paul


Hoy, James
Marquand, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mason, Roy
Ryan, John


Hunter, Adam
Mayhew, Christopher
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hynd, John
Mellish, Robert
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mendelson, J. J.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Mitchell R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Taverne, Dick


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Kelley, Richard
Murray, Albert
Thornton, Ernest


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Tinn, James


Kerr, Ruessell (Feltham)
Norwood, Christopher
Varley, Eric G.


Lawson, George
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ledger, Ron
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lee, John (Reading)
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Wallace, George


Lomas, Kenneth
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, David (Consett)


Loughlin, Charles
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Luard, Evan
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Weitzman, David


Lubbock, Eric
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Whitlock, William


McBride, Neil
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McCann, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Probert, Arthur
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mackenzie Alasdair (Ross &amp;Crom'ty)
Randall, Harry
Winnick, David


Mackintosh John P.
Redhead, Edward
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Richard, Ivor
Yates, Victor


MacPherson, Malcolm
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. R. W. Brown and


Manuel, Archie
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maginnis, John E.


Astor, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Baker, W. H. K.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Batsford, Brian
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bell, Ronald
Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Monro, Hector


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Neave, Airey


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Higgins Terence L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peyton, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordie, John
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crawley, Aidan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crowder, F. P.
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fortescue, Tim
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.







Thatcher, Mirs. Margaret
Wall, Patrick
Wylie, N. R.


Tilney, John
Webster, David
Younger, Hn. George


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. David Mitchell and


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Anthony Grant.

11.15 p.m.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 10. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: On a point of order, Sir Eric. I think that it was agreed earlier that Amendment No. 2 would be called without debate for a separate Division.

The Chairman: What I indicated was that any of the other Amendments that were appropriate could be called. The difficulty about Amendment No. 2 is that the Committee has already voted, in effect, to leave out from "shall" in line 7 to "and" in line 9, which is the precise purpose of Amendment No. 2, and,

therefore, Amendment No. 2 has, in fact, fallen.

If a Division is desired on Amendments Nos. 5, 7, or 9, that would be possible. Otherwise, I call Mr. Boyd-Carpenter to move Amendment No. 10.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I should be grateful if you would call those for Division, Sir Eric.

Amendment No. 5 proposed: In page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Question put: That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 133.

Division No. 214.]
AYES
[11.17 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Doig, Peter
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Alldritt, Walter
Dunn, James A.
Howie, W.


Allen, Scholefield
Dunnett, Jack
Hoy, James


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Edelman, Maurice
Hynd, John


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Sp[...]gh)


Baxter, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ellis, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ennals, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Binns, John
Ensor, David
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Blackburn, F.
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kelley, Richard


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Boston, Terence
Floud, Bernard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foley, Maurice
Lawson, George


Bradley, Tom.
Ford, Ben
Ledger, Ron


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Forrester, John
Lee, John (Reading)


Brooks, Edwin
Fowler, Gerry
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Gardner, Tony
Luard, Evan


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lubbock, Eric


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cant, R. B.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Gregory, Arnold
McBride, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McCann, John


Chapman, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, A. H.


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Concannon, J. D.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackintosh, John P.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamling, William
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Haseldine, Norman
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hazell, Bert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie


Davies Harold (Leek)
Henig, Stanley
Mapp, Charles


Dempsey, James
Hooley, Frank
Marquand, David


Dewar, Donald
Horner, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Dickens, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Roy


Dobson, Ray
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher




Mellish, Robert
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Thornton, Ernest


Mendelson J. J.
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Randall, Harry
Varley, Eric G.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Redhead, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Molloy, William
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Richard, Ivor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wallace, George


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Moyle, Roland
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Murray, Albert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Weitzman, David


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wellbeloved, James


Norwood, Christopher
Rose, Paul
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oakes, Gordon
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Whitaker, Ben


Ogden, Eric
Ryan, John
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Brian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orbach, Maurice
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Orme, Stanley
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Winnick, David


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Palmer, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Yates, Victor


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Nott, John


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hirst, Geoffrey
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Blaker, Peter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stodart, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Kirk, Peter
Stodart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Summers, Sir Spencer


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooke, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Cordie, John
Legge-Bourke, Sit Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Corfield, F. V.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Crawley, Aidan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crowder, F. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Miscampbell, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector



Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. George Younger and


Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Neave, Airey

Amendment No. 7 proposed: In page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 207, Noes 133.

Division No. 215.]
AYES
[11.26 p. m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Alldritt, Walter
Archer, Peter
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice


Allen, Scholefield
Armstrong, Ernest
Baxter, William




Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Binns, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Albert


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Norwood, Christopher


Boardman, H.
Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Boston, Terence
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hazell, Bert
Orbach, Maurice


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Henig, Stanley
Oswald, Thomas


Brooks, Edwin
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Horner, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoy, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Probert, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Randall, Harry


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John
Redhead, Edward


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Richard, Ivor


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kelley, Richard
Ryan, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dewar, Donald
Ledger, Ron
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dickens, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dobson, Ray
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Luard, Evan
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lubbock, Eric
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thornton, Ernest


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tinn, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Varley, Eric G.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ennals, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp;Crom'ty)
Wallace, George


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wellbeloved, James


Floud, Bernard
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Whitaker, Ben


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Manuel, Archie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fowler, Gerry
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Marquand, David
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Gardner, Tony
Mason, Roy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Robert
Yates, Victor


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, J. J.



Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Molloy, William
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Cordie, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Corfield, F. V.


Astor, John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Crowder, F. P.


Awdry, Daniel
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Batsford, Brian
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Errington, Sir Eric


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Farr, John


Biffen, John
Clark, Henry
Fortescue, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Gibson-Watt, David


Black, Sir Cyril
Cooke, Robert
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan







Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Sharples, Richard


Grant-Ferris, R.
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Smith, John


Grieve, Percy
Maginnie, John E.
Stodart, Anthony


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Cot. Sir M. (Ripon)


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Millis, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tilney, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Alrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nott, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Webster, David


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, William


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, John
Wylie, N. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Younger, Hn. George


Kirk, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.



Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. S. W. Elliott and


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Jasper More.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do not move this Motion to express our delight at having the Foreign Secretary, in his weekday suit, present for the first time at our celebrations today, nor to comment upon the slipping majorities which the Government are securing. I move it for the usual reason, to ask what are the intentions of the Home Secretary. Two hours ago the Government Chief Whip tried to move the Closure. There was some anger and we looked to the Chair for protection and not in vain.
I am very grateful, because I thought for a moment that the Closure was to be accepted. I want to reiterate the apology I then made. It is quite clear that the Bill will only be obtained with the help of the Government Chief Whip, and that makes a difficult position almost intolerable for the Committee. This is a Bill to take away people's votes, where there is no agreement and no change in boundaries. It is bad enough to have to discuss such a Bill, but it is far worse that such a Bill should toil its way through the Committee with Closures being moved at intervals so as to secure the Government's business.
Quite apart from that, I move this Motion because we have made the most

excellent progress. We have now disposed of no less than seven Amendments, No. 1 and six others which were taken with it. This is by far the largest issue, and we have disposed of this in a little under eight hours. It is very good progress and I suggest that, on the strength of it, we should all go to bed.
There are other reasons, to which I will briefly advert. First, it would be a kindness to the Home Secretary to release him for a time from this Bill. I never thought that we would see a Minister more unhappy with a Bill than the Minister of Labour with the S.E.T. Bill during the summer, but the Home Secretary seems to be even more unhappy. We know that he must hate this Bill. If he had been here more often he would have heard the genuine tributes paid to him from this side of the Committee. It is not possible for him to be the man that he is and to take any other attitude towards the Bill.
I hope that when he replies at the end of this debate he will give some explanation for what I am bound to say—and I use these words carefully—looks like his studied insolence to the Committee while these debates have taken place over the last few hours. I have been told that the Home Secretary has just been appearing on television, to discuss another Bill. There is no duty whatever that takes precedence over attendance at


the House of Commons, particularly when the Bill in question is one that has been presented by the right hon. Gentleman, and particularly if it is his conduct which is under attack.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have wished to have been here—he is a good House of Commons man—but it is a fact that for large parts of the debate on the Bill he has been absent. I hope that the reason for his absence is more his contempt for the Bill, which I would understand, than his contempt for the House of Commons. He has been very sensitive to attacks made upon him about his conduct. There is a very simple remedy. If he wants to keep his hands clean he should not touch a squalid Bill like this, which has been presented in his name.
I will give our other reasons briefly. We think that the Minister of State, Home Office would welcome the rest, and we hope to accord that to her. She would then come back refreshed with new arguments, which might even relate to the Amendments before the Committee, which was not the case when she spoke this afternoon. She would perhaps like time to turn over the simple fact that the earliest moment that one can question the minutes of one meeting is at the next meeting. I have no doubt that we shall return to this matter.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has been most kind to the Committee in attending for much of the debate on the Bill. Because he has, directly or indirectly, a considerable share of responsibility for it, we are grateful to him and regard honour as satisfied by his attendance.
Summing up, each of the reasons I have given would, by itself, be enough to justify, at a time getting on for midnight, the acceptance of a Motion to report Progress and, if you must, Sir Eric, to ask leave to sit again, although I would much prefer that you did not and that we abandoned the Bill altogether. The main reason for my moving the Motion is to enable the Home Secretary, at an appropriate point, to tell us what his intentions are, now that the biggest issue of the Bill is behind us.
I would regard it as satisfactory if we ended this part of the Committee stage

with the excellent progress that we have made so far.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: This is an issue which should not be pushed into the night. We are now reaching the stage where the various boroughs are named in the Bill, and from this point on their individual grievances may be discussed. It is to be hoped that the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary have left to have discussions which will meet the points made by my right hon. Friend. It is the usual practice in the Committee for right hon. Gentlemen to go behind the Chair for such discussions, and we know that points which are made in their absence will be passed on to them and taken fully into account. But this is a point where we ought not to go on into the night. We are now getting to the detailed parts of the Bill, and they should be discussed in the light of day. We know that one hour by day is better than three hours by night.
I support my right hon. Friend in asking the Treasury Bench to do what they want to do from now on in the full light of day. It is important that the Government should not appear to be pushing this Measure through. They have cut across the impartiality of the electoral machine; they have taken out of the hands of parents the chance of expressing their views on a vital educational matter. I hope that if we are allowed extra time in Committee the Treasury Bench or the Home Secretary will put down an Amendment to meet the arguments which have been adduced.
I hope that the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House will return from being closeted together and will offer to my right hon. Friend and the Committee extra time for a debate on the details of the Bill—which are a very significant part of our proceedings in Committee—in the only sort of atmosphere which will enable justice to be done to the arguments put forward.
I do not represent a London constituency. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor any constituency."] If anyone opposite want to make reference to my terrific majority I would point out that it was 200 per cent. more than was necessary. I intervene because I believe that the Treasury Bench should know that this matter interests those in constituencies outside London. It is true that only


5½ million voters are affected by the narrow terms of the Committee stage, but the principle behind it affects the whole country.
I wanted to add my voice to what has been said, and to point out that it would be in the interests of good government —and certainly in the interests of the reputation of the Government—that more time should be allowed for our discussion in Committee than, we understand, has been allowed so far. I hope that the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary are coming to a decision behind the Chair which will give my right hon. Friend that answer to his query.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I would give contrary advice to the Government. I think that it would be a great mistake for them to accede to the demand of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), although I am afraid, looking at the weak-kneed lot on the Government Front Bench, that they may be disposed to come to some agreement——

Hon. Members: Where are the Liberals?

Mr. Lubbock: If hon. Members on this side of the Committee would care to listen to me for one moment——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Lubbock: Well, whether they care to listen to me or not, I will put this point of view—that what they demanded just now is inconsistent with what they said earlier in the afternoon. They were complaining then that the Bill was a waste of Parliamentary time. I heard the right hon. Member for Enfield, West himself say earlier that we should not be taking up a day of Parliament's time when we could be getting on with other matters on the Home Office programme, which he admitted were infinitely more important——

Mr. Iain Macleod: It was not me.

Mr. Lubbock: If it was not the right hon. Member, it was one of his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They are indistinguishable from one another——

Sir D. Glover: All brilliant.

Mr. Lubbock: I think that it was the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-

Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who said it—[Interruption.] At any rate, that is the view of the Conservative Party, that we should not absorb scarce Parliamentary time in a discussion of the Bill. Now, when we come to a comparatively early hour of the night—it is only a quarter to twelve: there is plenty of time—[HON. MEMBERS: "And where are all the Liberals?"] Unlike hon. Members of the Conservative Party, we believe that London Members should have something to say on matters affecting London. We do not bring Members in from places like Peterborough to speak on these subjects—[An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member's party has no one from Peterborough."]—and we do not think, frankly, that the views of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) on this subject are of any great importance——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Lubbock: I very much respect the hon. Member for Peterborough. He is a great friend of mine, but he has not been present through the greater part of the debate. Although I can sympathise with him in wanting to go home and get a nice early rest, the interests of the Committee are more important than the hon. Member's——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I doubt that.

Mr. Lubbock: —beauty sleep.
Therefore, I think that it would be in the interests of the Committee as a whole if we were to continue to make some progress and did not accept the Motion. After all, as the right hon. Member for Enfield, West said, we have disposed of the most important group of Amendments, comprising no less than seven. I am not sure that I agree with him in his congratulations to the Committee on having disposed of this group of Amendments in so short a time. I would point out that we have now been concerned with one group of Amendments since 3.30 this afternoon, which is more than eight hours.
We took less than seven hours on the Second Reading of the Bill, so this is out of proportion. We could have disposed of this group of Amendments by about seven o'clock this evening. There was a good deal of repetition in some of the later speeches to which I listened. I am


sure that, if the Committee were allowed to continue the debate on this second group of Amendments, dealing with the London borough of Camden, and so on, we should not find hon. Members from far-flung parts of the country like Ormskirk and Peterborough wishing to take part——

Sir D. Glover: The salt of the earth.

Mr. Lubbock: —very valuable hon. Members, but I am not sure that they know much about the London Boroughs of Camden and Havering.
It is, therefore, my prediction that, if we decided to go ahead with the next group of Amendments and made some progress on them, far fewer speeches would be made than on the first group of seven, in which some hon. Members without much knowledge of the problems of Greater London decided, in their wisdom, that they wished to take part.
I should hope that the Government and Opposition together could agree that we should see how we get on with the next group of Amendments before we come to the conclusion that the Chairman should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Perhaps when we get to about 3 o'clock we should see how we are getting on, and if not much progress is being made we could consider the matter again. The night is yet young and the problems of Camden, Havering and Kingston-upon-Thames are ones which could easily keep us for less than two hours and still leave time for dealing with other matters on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the Committee will have listened with considerable surprise at least to the last section of the remarks of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). It is an astonishing thing that the Liberal Party should be so solidly behind the dictatorship in the Bill. I hope that the country will note how little the Liberals are true to the principles which once made their party great
However, I do not intend to waste the time of the Committee in flogging a dead horse. Instead, I turn my attention to the Home Secretary, whom we are glad to have back with us after his startling appearance on television in support of the Criminal Justice Bill. It is time that he

told us what he proposes to do about our business tonight. As I do not want to spend time discussing what his intentions might be, I ask him to answer now.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On the view of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), the alliance on the Bill in favour of dictatorship is most remarkable. It includes the Liberal Party, the Labour Party and all the Conservatives on the Westminster City Council, of whose area his constituency forms a most distinguished part.

Mr. Hogg: The Conservatives on Westminster City Council fell for the committee of town clerks.

Mr. Jenkins: I apologise to the Committee, as I did to the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon—and he, with his customary courtesy, accepted it as he understood my position—that I have had other commitments during the day and have not heard as much as I should have liked of the debate. I am sorry for those periods of absence, which were unavoidable.
We have made some progress, perhaps not very much, but we have taken longer today to have the Second Reading debate all over again, which is one way of looking at it. But we have disposed of a number of Amendments and if we dispose of two more Amendments reasonably expeditiously we might feel that we have made reasonable progress and it would not be necessary to keep the Committee longer.

Mr. Iain Macleod: May I ask for reasonable precision on what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which we all welcome? I shall not comment on other matters which have been raised, but we were glad to hear what he said. We can always be certain that when the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) advises the Committee to take a certain course of action it will unite as a whole in doing exactly the opposite.
May I put the matter precisely in terms of the Amendments on the Notice Paper. If the Home Secretary suggests that we should take Amendment No. 10 about Camden and Amendment No. 11 about Havering, and then call it a day, on that understanding I would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Lubbock: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he answer the question——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Brewis): I think that the right hon. Gentleman has sat down.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is perfectly correct in his assumption. If we could get Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, we might call it, if not a day, at least a night.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 28, at the end to add:
(5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Camden.
This the first of the Amendments which propose the exclusion of individual boroughs from the Bill. In doing so, we are in no sense accepting that it is right that any borough should be included in it. But we have looked very carefully at the situation in a number of boroughs and have found a certain number of them in which the serious objections to the inclusion in the Bill of any London borough are even more serious in respect of the borough concerned. This is certainly true of the London Borough of Camden. There are circumstances in respect of that borough which make it particularly and specially desirable that the electors should have the opportunity of deciding whether they wish to continue with the same local government representatives or to make a change.
I will support that proposition by drawing attention to certain aspects of the policy pursued by the majority party on the Camden Council which will, I think, satisfy the Committee that these are matters so serious that they demand that the electors of that borough should be given the chance to say that this sort of thing should either continue or stop.
The Committee will be aware, because Questions about it were put to the Minister of Housing and Local Government a few weeks ago, that the district auditor has submitted a report to the council on the position of the housing account and housing revenues of that borough. Although I have before me the

full text of the district auditor's report, I will not inflict a complete reading of it on the Committee. I wish, however, to invite attention to the note which the district auditor has put on the accounts:
An examination of the 1966–67 estimates
—the Committee will be aware that 1966–67 is the year with which we are concerned—
shows that when the income and expenditure relating to dwellings (including garages) are considered separately (by excluding the income and expenditure relating to shops, workshops, and the provision of gas, electricity, etc., which are self-supporting) the amount paid by ratepayers towards housing revenue expenditure (£1,704,925) is greater than the rent paid by the tenants of the Council's houses, flats and garages (£1,646,100)".
12 m.
That, to which the district auditor has very properly drawn attention, reveals an astonishing state of affairs as regards the housing and rents policy of this council. On his findings, in respect of dwellings, excluding from the calculation other council properties, the ratepayers are finding by way of subsidy more than the tenants of those dwellings are finding by way of rents. When it is recalled that on top of that there comes the Exchequer subsidy from the taxpayer, and the citizens of Camden are also numbered among the taxpayers and pay also in that respect, a really startling state of affairs is revealed.
It is not the appropriate occasion, at this hour, to take part in any prolonged inquest into this state of affairs. The relevance of the matter to the Amendment is that the electors, including the ratepayers, of the borough should surely be given the opportunity of saying whether they are prepared to go on finding for those who have the good fortune to be their council tenants more by way of subsidies paid for out of their rates than those tenants are paying by way of rents. Surely they should have the opportunity of saying whether a situation so striking that the district auditor has found it right and necessary to report it should continue.
It may be that the general body of ratepayers and electors in Camden have such an affection for those who are their council tenants that they are happy to go on paying more than half their council rents. I do not know. Surely they should be asked. The figures in the district


auditor's report—the figures over the years are set out—show that it is a matter which has developed sharply in the last few years, since the new council came into being. Is it right that the ratepayers should be forced to go on in this extraordinary situation for another year without an opportunity to express their will?
When the present council which has done this was elected, it was elected on the basis that it would go out of office on 11th May, 1967. It is at least a possibility that those who then elected it, having seen what has happened, and being faced with the prospect of having to pay out of their own pockets very substantial sums indeed by way of rates to finance these policies, may wish to reverse that decision. It is a very old principle that there should be no taxation without representation. Yet this is precisely what is proposed, that for a further year those who are the electors of this Borough shall continue to be taxed on this inordinate scale, for purposes which some of them may not think right, without having the opportunity to decide whether they accept this burden. This is plainly wrong. This is a reason for bringing out the fact that to postpone the election in the Borough of Camden is in some degree worse than to postpone it in the generality of London boroughs.
The matter does not stop there. This borough has also undertaken what is an innovation in our local government system. I will read a few lines that set it out:
At its meeting on 20th July, 1966, Camden Council was asked to accept a recommendation from its General Purposes Committee to create a Policy Advisory Committee, from which members of the Conservative Minority Party would be excluded. Only memebrs of the Labour Majority and Council Officers would be allowed to sit on this Committee.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a proposal to use the officers of the council, who are employed on behalf of and by the generality of the ratepayers, to advise and serve a party committee composed solely of members of the Labour Party. It may be that the ratepayers and electors of Camden are happy to support the activities of the Labour Party at their expense in this way, but it would be as well to test the matter

and make sure. This is an innovation in our local government system, though it has been imitated already by another Labour-controlled borough in London. It might be salutary to that Borough and to others which desire to imitate the example to see whether the electors of this borough are, in fact prepared to sanction this and continue it.
That is an abuse. It is very wrong, and it is an example of the extreme partisanship of the Labour Party in the control of the borough, as of a number of other London boroughs. Are we right, in these circumstances, to exclude the electors from an opportunity to give a decision on this matter at the time when they expected to be able to give such a decision when they elected the present council?
There is only one other matter of this coin to which I seek to refer. It is, alas, not necessarily unique. As soon as Camden came into final being, a resolution was forced through the staff committee and the council making membership of a trade union or professional association a condition of employment by the Council. In respect of a public body, that is wrong. It is unhappy when an employer enters into an agreement to impose the closed shop, but to some extent that is within the employer's scope and judgment, although one may deplore it and think that he is guilty of an error of judgment.
It is a matter within his control. But when a public authority—spending public money, the money of people of all political views, of people who belong to trade unions and those who are not members of trade unions—makes it a condition of employment by it that there shall be a closed shop, that is a matter which at least is liable to challenge.
Surely the electors of Camden should be given the chance to say whether or not they wish this to be done in their name? I could go on, for I have a vast folder here about the doings of the Camden Council. If it has not exactly been active in well-doing it has certainly been energetic in doing. But I do not wish to weary the Committee, because I think that the points I have already made are sufficient justification for saying that in this case the electors should have the opportunity to decide.
It may be objected that one cannot pick and choose between London boroughs in this respect. I reject that argument. I know of no technical or practical reason why one should not have the election in Camden on 11th May, even if one does not have it anywhere else in London. I am sure that the town clerk is as capable as all town clerks of carrying out the necessary organisation. That is precisely what happens when there are by-elections. For example, if there is a Parliamentary by-election over a much smaller area than a London borough there is the whole apparatus of a Parliamentary election in one place, and it is not happening anywhere else. The same is true of local government by-elections.
If the Bill goes through in its present form, there may be quite a number of councillors who had decided anyway to bring their term of office to an end and who may leave office in May, with the result that there may well be a considerable number of elections on the date when there would have been the council elections under the present law. I mention that to point out that we are not imposing an impracticality in suggesting that there is a case for picking out this borough if the Government insist on imposing their will over the generality of London boroughs.
On subsequent Amendments we shall demonstrate a case for picking out others where, because of the special circumstances, such as the course of conduct of the ruling party—the measures it has adopted, the steps it has taken—the argument for giving electors the chance to say whether they approve is even stronger than over the whole of the metropolitan area.
This is practical; this is just. I beg hon. Members opposite, who may think that the Camden council is right on all three matters to which I have referred, to accept that there are many people who think that it is gravely wrong. In this country we settle these matters by the vote, and the grim aspect of the Bill now before us is that it is one which deprives electors of the exercise of that vote at the right time and at a prearranged time. I think that if one does not, where there are these issues of this importance, give the electors the chance to pronounce, one is, in sober truth,

undermining the principles of democracy in this country.
If people cannot vote, as they expect to, on issues on which they feel strongly, we may drive them to all sorts of irregularities—to the withholding of rates, to all sorts of follies and stupidities—because constitutional expression, the right way to express their views, is denied them. It is for this reason, pertinent, I suggest, to this borough, in cumulative effect overwhelmingly in respect of this borough, that I have moved the Amendment.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: The Opposition have chosen to be rather invidious about the Borough of Camden, so I hope that I may be permitted to say to the Committee that I think that the borough is the most splendid borough in the whole of London.
It is absolute nonsense, farcical nonsense, for the Opposition to bring forward this argument at the present time. Why not have an election, they ask. At the last election the rent policy of the then council of St. Pancras was the same as it is now, and those wards which comprise the St. Pancras part of Camden returned an overwhelming Labour victory in support of the rent policy which is now carried on by the Borough of Camden. To suggest that the present rent policy of the Borough of Camden is something which has been thought up without any reference at any point to the electorate, is certainly to mislead the Committee.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that a borough which, at a time when the Government have a prices and incomes freeze, is increasing its rents by as much as 9s. for a one-room flatlet from 23rd January next will not appear in the eyes of the electorate very differently from what it did in the circumstances which prevailed before?

Mrs. Jeger: The hon. Gentleman is really contradicting the point of his right hon. Friend, because on the thesis that there are more ratepayers than council tenants—though I must add that council tenants pay rates, which is a consideration people often forget—we are putting ourselves possibly at an electoral advantage, and it is very unselfish of us to come


along with this proposal to postpone the elections.
But what makes me very angry about the sort of speech we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should be castigating council tenants and the Labour boroughs which have been grappling with an insuperable problem of housing in central London, where it was made tremendously difficult, almost unmanageable, during 13 years of Conservative government——

Mr. A. Boyle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Jeger: No, I will not—when every progressive housing authority throughout the country, particularly in London, was held to ransom by land and money speculators. The housing account in Camden is suffering from over-charges on sites, from absolutely disgracefully inflated land prices, from the burden of interest rates—all a heritage of the Conservative Party's capitalistic approach to housing.
12.15 a.m.
Of all the rents that are collected in the Borough of Camden, more than half are paid out in interest rates to moneylenders. That is where the subsidy goes. Members opposite talk as though the tenants were getting the subsidy. It is their friends who are getting the subsidy. Over 50 per cent. of the rents goes in paying off capital. It does not go out in maintenance, but straight into interest charges on loans. We would not have had this heavy deficit—and goodness knows, as a ratepayer in Camden myself, I do not need anyone to tell me of the seriousness of this deficit—had we not got loaded on to our housing account inflated, wicked, gamblers prices for land, and the whole impact of the Tory policy of free-for-all in land prices was at its sharpest and bitterest in central London.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady referred to the burden of interest rates being a major cause of this, but have they not become very much higher during the last two years?

Mrs. Jeger: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will wait for news of the

housing subsidies Bill, which, I believe, will be before the House very soon. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will at least have the good sense to backdate the subsidies to take care of the point which has been raised.

Mr. A. Boyle: The hon. Lady has castigated the many actions which were taken by the Conservative Administration over 13 years to improve the housing situation in London. Would she detail for us now any action which has resulted in any real improvement in the housing situation in central London at the present time? I have not noticed any, and I do not think that she has, either.

Mrs. Jeger: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to give him a lecture on the benefits of the effect of the Rent Act and of the doubling of the output for housing in the Borough of Camden. Let me say that it is the central London boroughs which have this grievous problem. It is because of the influence of the private landlords, who have been supported by the party opposite, that our borough is thick with slums. It is defaced with slums, and the burden of clearing densely populated slum buildings is expensive. I do not know whether hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite are saying that Camden should have left more of its citizens in the disgusting slums which is the heritage of their friends in central London.
When a borough, which is burdened with an unfair number of slum dwellings, decides that this is no way for people to live in the middle of the twentieth century, and takes a firm decision and says that "no matter what this costs, we are not going to put up with this disgraceful situation, with this deformity of living, in this modern age", we get the moneylenders, the accountants, opposite adding up the figures, because they understand figures more than they understand the lives of people and more than they understand what slum conditions do to the lives of people.
If we have to stand before the electors of Camden, I will, on any platform in my own constituency, say "Yes, we have spent this money, because we want our people to live in decent conditions and we have not yet had time to put right the absurdity of housing finance which is


the heritage of the Tory Government and the dictates of private landlordism". I think that we shall get the result that we want from the electors of Camden whenever we go before them. In fact, they had a chance at the time of the General Election. I associated myself very closely, as a former member and chairman of the housing committee, with the local policies, and my majority went up every time. I do not feel that the electors were deprived of a voice in that matter. They will have a chance when the G.L.C. elections come along, because these issues will be discussed then and I shall be on the platform discussing them in any part of Camden to which I am invited during the next few months. So on that approach the Amendment collapses.
It is grossly unfair to pick on a borough which probably has more difficult problems than almost any other in central London. It is a very cosmopolitan borough, which perhaps brings privileges, joys and interests but also difficult problems. The borough has done a great deal through its welfare services and international committees and the help which the council has given to the various communities to try and bring about a harmonious atmosphere. This has always been so and it is something on which the borough may be congratulated. The fact that we now get this castigation from the Opposition when we have done such a great deal to cope with contemporary problems is, to say the least, ungracious.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we have spent some of the ratepayers' money on an arts festival, which started as the St. Pancras Arts Festival many years ago and which has become one of the most renowned occasions among municipal arts festivals in the country. The borough has done pioneer work in children's libraries as well as in other libraries. I suppose that it should not, according to the right hon. Gentleman, have spent so much of the ratepayers' money on building some pioneer children's playgrounds which have attracted attention throughout the world. There is absolutely no end to the sort of argument put by the right hon. Gentleman about whether one is concerned with the whole quality of living and environment and whether one is to

interpret it in terms of contributions one has to expect from the ratepayers.
These are fundamental problems of local government finance and to follow them would take me beyond the Amendment, to which I hope to keep as closely as has so far been the case in this Committee. But many of us are looking forward to changes in the whole structure of local government finance, looking forward to the Royal Commission's Report, because only in such fundamental ways can these difficulties be dealt with at their roots.
Meanwhile, I hope that the Committee will agree that, in the case of Camden, we have a courageous borough trying to grapple with immense difficulties in an imaginative and sympathetic way. I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment with the contempt it deserves.

Mr. Lubbock: It is easy to see why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) only wanted to discuss this Amendment and the next one before we finished for today because, as soon as that proposition was accepted by the Home Secretary, he disappeared in a cloud of dust. We have not the privilege of hearing him on the subject of the improvidence of Camden. I thought that, if he was so keen to concentrate his attention on this Amendment and the next, we might have heard something from him. It is disappointing to find that he has had to go to bed at this early hour and that we are not to have his advice on the problems of Camden.
We have had to make do, instead, with a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I do not know where he gets his information about Camden from.
There is a great deal in the doctrine that it ill becomes hon. Members to indulge in the sort of Prodnose officiousness that the hon. Member—was suggesting, and acting as though we were super councillors and had some standing in respect of matters which Parliament has seen fit to give into the exclusive jurisdiction of local authorities…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 328.]
I quote from some criticisms made of me by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) during the Second


Reading debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has been guilty of the sin of entering into the detailed problems which affect one London borough, without giving the other side of the story, which we have just had from the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mrs. Lena Jeger). She gave us a different picture and the Committee is not in a position to judge between the two.
We know that there are serious housing problems in the hon. Lady's constituency, and we look with sympathy upon her attempts to put these matters right, and upon the fight which she has always waged on behalf of exploited tenants in her constituency. I am with her all the way. It is a monstrous thing that we have had to put up with this exploitation in the depressed areas of Greater London.
The right hon. Gentleman says that for the time being it is impossible for this local authority to balance its housing revenue account. My answer is that the Government must do something about the finances of local authorities. I am extremely disappointed that they have appointed a Royal Commission and that we will probably have to wait for two years before we have the answer. This is no excuse for local authorities not to get on with the job of moving these hideous blots upon the face of Greater London, which still exist in constituencies such as that of the hon. Lady.
It ill-becomes anyone in this Committee who comes from outside of these areas, from wealthy suburbs, such as Kingston-upon-Thames to criticise the very serious efforts made by local authorities in Inner London to cope with these problems. Turning to the Amendment, very much the same arguments have been produced to the Committee as were given on the previous seven. If one can make out a case for deferring the elections in the London Borough of Camden on such grounds as the right hon. Gentleman has sought to adduce, then one can criticise any local authority.
I can talk about the London Borough of Bromley and the secrecy which it has maintained in its committees. I only mention the London Borough of Bromley

in passing to show that we can all, as ratepayers, produce some criticisms of our own local authority, with greater knowledge of the circumstances than the right hon. Gentleman, who as far as I am aware, does not live in Camden. I happen to live in my constituency and I could say a great deal later about the London Borough of Bromley, if it were not for this unholy agreement between the two Front Benches which has prevented us from discussing the matter this evening.
We have to waste another day of Parliamentary time. I very much object to this. If this had been put to the Committee it would not have agreed that we should only discuss two Amendments this evening, on two Boroughs, if we are to have repetition of the arguments advanced over at least eight hours. We could have got on a little further, but I would be out of order if I were to pursue this subject.
It is quite wrong for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to raise the detailed problems of Camden, and to talk as if they were councillors, attempting to deal with the very serious problems that the local authority has to face, without having any detailed knowledge of those problems as a result of being a member of a local authority of a ratepayer.
As I understand it, the hon. Lady is, and we listen to her with greater respect than we listen to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that we shall not have the same sort of arguments on every one of the Amendments. This would be a gross abuse of Parliamentary time and I hope that the Chair will prevent tedious repetition about the problems of London boroughs, such as we have had on these earlier Amendments.
My advice to the Committee is not only to reject the Amendment on the London Borough of Camden, but, having disposed of it, to go on to make very short work of the other Amendments dealing with individual London boroughs.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Rossi: I congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) for the public relations exercise which she has carried out on behalf of her borough. We were


extremely interested to hear about the borough's wonderful arts council and welfare work and the cosmopolitan nature of the community, but it might have assisted the Committee more if she had dealt directly with the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He raised three very important points concerning the conduct of the affairs of that borough—conduct which deserves an immediate recourse to the electorate to decide whether the affairs of the borough should be continued in that way.
My right hon. Friend mentioned, first, the operation of that borough's housing revenue account, which we in the London area know amounts, in proportion, to a national scandal. The district auditor has had some very severe comments to make about it. It is a matter of great concern, not merely to the residents of the former Borough of St. Pancras, who have sat under this kind of situation for many years and perhaps have known no other and no better, but also to the ratepayers of Hampstead, who find themselves married to this situation against their will and who after three years' experience of Labour control and Labour rent policies for council tenants, no doubt wish to exercise their voice.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone. I would have liked to ask him for his comment on the speech that we heard in support of the rent policies of the Borough of Camden. These policies are directly opposed to present Government policies. We had the famous circular of November 1965 urging all local authorities to operate rent rebate schemes and to co-operate with the Ministry of Housing in the preparation of such schemes. Camden has not co-operated with the Government to the full in this matter. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for his views on the attitude of the Borough of Camden in this matter.

Mrs. Jeger: There is in Camden a differential operating in rents. I do not know what the hon. Member means by suggesting that there is not.

Mr. Rossi: There are schemes and schemes, and the one which produces a deficit of the kind produced by the housing revenue account of Camden is

not acceptable—as one understands from the statements made regularly by the Ministry—to the Government. It is clear from statements and Answers which the Minister of Housing has made to Questions on the Floor of the House that he does not wish to see housing revenue accounts with deficits of this kind.
We were told that this deficit is partly due to the high interest rates which have to be paid at present by local authorities on their capital borrowings. This is correct, and it is regrettable that, in the last two years, there has been a steady climb in the interest charges which local authorities have to pay, despite General Election promises and deceptions perpetrated by the party opposite. Councils are paying more month by month for the money they borrow as the direct result of the economic policies of the party opposite.
It is said that these interest charges are going into the pockets of bankers and accountants and "disreputable" people of that sort. I take the trouble from time to time to look at the tenders for loans to my own local authority. With great regularity, there are offers from trade union funds and from the Co-operative movement. Are their interest charges below the norm? They want the full market rate, my goodness they do. They are not slow in demanding their pound of flesh. So let us not have this kind of hypocrisy from hon. Members opposite.
The other matter which my right hon. Friend mentioned—the hon. Lady's speech was significant in its silence on this point—concerned the secret committee, the cabal set up by Labour Party members, together with the officers of the council. This is a most dangerous innovation and trend in local government, a complete departure from the democratic processes as we understand them.
We hear criticisms—the hon. Member for Orpington has gone now—of the Press not being admitted to the meetings of some committees of some councils, but this is far worse. This is a secret committee from which the minority party is completely excluded. There is no watchdog at all on the part of the public. The powers-that-be, the party bosses, run the council and dictate to the officers.


There is no opposition there to hear what is going on, let alone to probe and criticise. This is completely contrary to the system of democracy as it has grown up in this country over the centuries.
We value the two-party system in this Committee and this House for the probing and testing of policies. This is the way Parliament works and local councils have imitated our processes and work in the same way. But now a local council is trying to depart from that completely. Socialism is becoming National Socialism in this respect: this is the danger—the hon. Lady smiles about this. No doubt she has to support her friends. Loyalty is a quality to be admired, no matter how misplaced it may be, but this is a situation which causes the gravest concern in the minds and hearts of people who value democracy as we know it.
The third matter on which the electorate should have a say is the question of compelling employees to belong to a trade union. This is of fundamental importance—the freedom of a man to belong to a trade union or not as he wishes, and not to be compelled by his employer to belong as a condition of his employment. These are all vital matters which go to the root of freedom and our democratic system, and on which the electorate of the borough of Camden should have the opportunity of voicing an opinion as early as possible.

The Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Maurice Foley): The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), in moving this Amendment, referred to special circumstances as an argument for a borough contracting out of the normality of period of election or time of election. He has chosen the borough of Camden as the first example of this kind of case. One wonders immediately why. Clearly, many of us can think of a variety of boroughs in London and in local government in other parts of the country where there are inadequacies in the way in which local government functions. One might have chosen the borough in which the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is and looked at the question of why the Conservative mem-

bers on that Conservative-dominated council with a clear majority, in determing where the 10 aldermanic seats should go, decided to take nine for itself and give one to the opposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If for these reasons he is criticising that council, will the hon. Gentleman support me when I move a subsequent Amendment to allow the electors of that constituency to have the right to choose their council next May?

Mr. Foley: The right hon. Gentleman is being much too quick. He must allow me to develop my argument in my own way. I am referring to the right hon. Gentleman's notion of special circumstances and the motives behind it. He chose Camden despite the fact that there were a number of other boroughs which he might have chosen. There was a certain amount of political motivation in his choice of Camden. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) vigorously defended her constituency and the borough in which she resides.
One ought to look closely at what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said. He was highly selective and did not go far enough in his reference. He instanced the question of housing and spoke about the deficit on the housing revenue account and the district auditor's report. He is quite correct, but he should have gone on to say what had been the consequences of the district auditor's report and what action followed from it, if he really wanted to be fair and objective. This was conspicuous by its absence.
The district auditor suggested that there should be an interim rent increase pending completion of a survey of housing rents in the borough, which is being undertaken by the Centre for Urban Studies at the University of London. After consideration, the council has decided on interim rent increases. It has taken these steps already. The right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that. Presumably he was condemning the council without knowledge of this, or if he had knowledge of it, he deliberately forgot to mention it because it would not bolster his case.
The council has since approached the Ministry of Housing and Local Government with reference to the Government's policy on prices and incomes, paragraph 20, relating to rent increases. The first increase which the council proposed fell within the period of restraint and the council has not brought it to bear, but like all councils it has a duty to balance the amounts received from rents with the interests of ratepayers. Some local authorities will not be able to avoid increasing rents. On housing, Camden has been indicted and selected as a special circumstance, but it is in the process of putting its house in order.
The second reference was made particularly by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about this mysterious policy committee. He has personal experience of local government, but he must not assume that others have not. I served for five years on a local council in the Greater London area which was Conservative-controlled. The chairmen of committees were Conservatives. They met regularly in secret and determined the policies of the council. The Press was excluded and the opposition was never informed.

Mr. A. Royle: Were the officers present?

Mr. Foley: The chairman of the principal committee certainly met with the officers.

Mr. Royle: But did the members of the committee of the majority party meet privately with the officers on their own?

Mr. Foley: The relative chairman of the committee certainly met frequently with the relative officer of the committee. This was in secret. The opposition were denied knowledge of this. Whether they sat down with the respective officers I doubt; I have no knowledge of this.
It may well be that this is part of an innovation. It may well be that what is emerging is the notion of a kind of

cabinet at local government level where —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Reference was made to this as being an innovation; it should be looked at. It may well be that this is so. I have referred to my experience over many years of a Conservative-controlled council appointing its own chairmen automatically for every committee, meeting on their own, determining policy, and no consultation with the opposition—in fact, ignoring the opposition. There is, therefore, nothing new about this idea of a policy committee in a local authority.

What is new is the possibility or notion or innovation of a committee in which officers also participate. One would like to see how the experiment works and evaluate it. I do not see how one can evaluate an experiment until it is given time to work.

I come now to the third matter, the question of a closed shop. This is an item on which there is clearly a variety of views. A variety of views has been presented to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, by Labour Party and Conservative Party representatives, management, trade union leaders, and so on. I do not think there is a clear consensus as to what is desirable in this respect.

All these references to Camden and special circumstances are invalid. This raises the broad question as to whether particular boroughs in the Greater London Area should be allowed to be different from the others. Clearly, if there are to be elections in the London boroughs, it would be in the interests of political parties, of the Press, of publicity and of administrators that they should be held on the same day. The Amendment makes administrative nonsense; it is a non-starter; it is ludicrous. I ask the Committee to reject it.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 192.

Division No. 216.]
AYES
[12.48 a. m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Anthony (Colchester)


Astor, John
Black, Sir Cyril
Bullus, Sir Eric


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Clark, Henry


Baker, W. H. K.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Clegg, Walter


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Corfield, F. V.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Biffen, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Eden, Sir John




Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pym, Francis


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn, Iain
Sharples, Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Smith, John


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, Anthony


Grant, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector
Temple, John M.


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
More, Jasper
Tilney, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wall, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Nott, John
Webster, David


Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, William


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jopling, Michael
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Wylie, N. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kirk, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. George Younger and


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, J. M. L.
 Mr. David Mitchell.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Ensor, David
Kelley, Richard


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter A Chatham)


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Ledger, Ron


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Floud, Bernard
Lestor, Miss Joan


Baxter, William
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bence, Cyril
Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler, Gerry
Luard, Evan


Binns, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lubbock, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Blackburn, F.
Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gardner, Tony
McBride, Neil


Booth, Albert
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McCann, John


Boston, Terence
Gourlay, Harry
Macdonald, A. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bradley, Tom
Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cant, R. B.
Hamling, William
Manuel, Archie


Carmichael, Neil
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David


Coleman, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Concannon, J. D.
Hazell, Bert
Mayhew, Christopher


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Robert


Craddock George (Bradford, S.)
Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, J. J.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hooley, Frank
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Dalyell, Tam
Horner, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dewar, Donald
Howie, W.
Moyle, Roland


Dickens, James
Hoy, James
Murray, Albert


Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Norwood, Christopher


Dunn, James A.
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Dunnett, Jack
Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b's)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley


Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Ellis, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Ennals, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)







Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Weitzman, David


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Whitaker, Ben


Probert, Arthur
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Redhead, Edward
Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Richard, Ivor
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Tinn, James
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Varley, Eric G.
Winnick, David


Rose, Paul
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Ryan, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Yates, Victor


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace, George



Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Short, Mrs, Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Mr. Alan Fitch and




Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 28, at the end to add:
(5) This section shall not apply to the London Borough of Havering.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am overcome with joy at that welcome.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has been relieved in his solitary position by one of his colleagues, was eager that there should not be what he called "vexatious repetition" in this series of Amendments. It would be very difficult to imagine a borough where the situation was more radically different from Camden than it is in Havering. Camden was in danger of a dictatorship; Havering is a situation where local government has almost completely broken down.
The only thing Camden has in common with Havering is that both are on the rocks financially. The latest estimate of the Havering housing deficit is, I gather, that it will be over a quarter of a million £s by March 1967. But whereas Camden is in the grip of a cabal, Havering is in nobody's grip at all. There is no effective majority controlling the affairs of Havering. Indeed, we have one of the borough's two Members of Parliament taking very serious steps. The Romford Times said on 25th May:
It is hard to imagine a greater insult to the authority than that an M.P. should feel forced to take this step.…
That was that he should ask Parliament to debate the affairs of his constituency local authority.
The paper also said:
Anyone who has been alarmed by the way in which political dog fights have brought discredit on the new Borough of Havering will welcome this week's news that Hornchurch Labour M.P., Mr. Alan Williams, is to seek a House of Commons debate on it.
In the Second Reading debate there was reference to the situation which was

developing in the borough, where the Labour leader on the council had to be removed by the police.
One of the Labour councillors wrote in the Havering Recorder and Brentwood Review on 3rd June:
From the viewpoint of a socialist, Havering is worse than Tory…To a non-socialist observer the effect is, at best, one of incompetent and inefficient direction of a local authority.
That is pretty bad, and it is pretty bad that by the ruthless and cynical use of the Government's Parliamentary majority the Home Secretary has decided, on behalf of the Government, to prevent the electors of Havering putting the deadlock at an end.
We have even heard this:
Whitehall keeps an eye on Council. Havering Council goes on trial tonight with Whitehall as its judge. For a report of the meeting will go to Junior Housing Minister Bob Mellish.
And that is a responsibility from which he cannot wholly resile, much as he was eager to disclaim responsibility for the Bill in other directions.
1.0 a.m.
Or take this:
Someone tilted the see-saw. For three hours tonight Havering Council will be busy reversing all the decisions it took last week.
What had taken place on this occasion when the wise men of Gotham had these deliberations was that, owing to the absence of two councillors of one party, a different majority prevailed from what had prevailed a week before.
Or take this:
Punch-up politics took over at Wednesday's Havering Council meeting, when one particularly ugly incident between councillors nearly brought police to the Town Hall shortly after midnight.
Or this:
Labour offer to resign".


And apparently, alas, they have withdrawn the offer. It would have been very much easier if Labour had offered to resign!
Fury at Town Hall. 'War' angers Council staff. A number of officials of Havering Council were said this week to be so disgusted by the latest 'war' between councillors that they are considering how they can take the law into their own hands.
This is a situation which the right hon. Gentleman is prolonging by the Bill which deprives the voters of Havering, and one trembles at what council officials will do when they take the law into their own hands. One even trembles for the safety of the councillors. But, alas, the popular Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has stepped in:
'There will definitely be no election until 1968'. Immediately after his 95-minute pep talk to a deputation from Havering Council on Tuesday, I talked to Mr. Bob Mellish in his huge wood-panelled office at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in Whitehall.
Well, I do not know what other talks the hon. Gentleman had in his huge wood-panelled office in Whitehall, but he told us that there will definitely be no election till 1968 for the poor electors of Havering.
I think I have made my case for moving my Amendment. I only beg the right hon. Gentleman to see the light and accept it.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has made the affairs of Havering Borough Council much more exciting than they really are. If he is relying on the exciting Press reports which he has read out to the Committee, I am afraid his information is very doubtful indeed, because there is no doubt at all in my mind that this is good copy for the local Press, but, by and large, as time has gone on, the reports themselves have greatly exaggerated the situation which exists.
The position, basically, is this—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would care to listen—that the Labour Party is in opposition, and the administration is jointly controlled by the Conservatives and independents. They have used this position to keep out the Labour group

from some of the committees. In fact, they have attempted to reduce the number of Labour representatives from the committee—[Interruption.] It is this that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to point out this evening. This has accounted for the deterioration of relations between the parties inside Havering Council. That is my view and it is certainly that of the Deputy Leader of the Labour group who is sitting in the Public Gallery. He would be only too pleased to put the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the picture.
It is my view that the position of the third party, the ratepayer, is an unduly complicated one in the council chamber. I hope the electors at the next election will clarify this matter and will give an overwhelming majority to Labour so that Havering can get the Government it deserves.

Mr. Foley: There is no doubt that if one wanted to look for any definition of special circumstances in the boroughs in London, this is the most bizarre situation that one could possibly find. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of irresponsibility shown by many people in Havering. There has been a procedural warfare, which went on until the end of July, with one group overthrowing the other, convening a council meeting, voting themselves out, and so on. It is true that my hon. Friend, the man who is accused of so much in relation to the authorship of this Bill, has himself received an all-party deputation at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I cannot vouch for the lavish rooms which he may have, or where he received the deputation, but certainly there was a discussion on just what could happen. He, I am told, emphasised the need for both a Government and an Opposition.
I am sure that all those who have been talking about neo-Nazi and Fascist activities and motivation on the part of the Labour Government will be delighted to know that the Parliamentary Secretary was advocating the need for a government and for an opposition in the Havering Council, and that they should recognise the rights of each other. My hon. Friend made it clear that his own Ministry would not recommend that the Home Secretary should make an exception in terms of the elections relating to


this particular borough. He did say, purely and simply, that it would be wrong to make an exception, to treat one borough differently from any of the others.
I should have thought that those who had been elected to official office in Havering would adopt a more sensible attitude and would realise that they are there to do a job of work. It may well be that the debate this evening will do some good. I think that on that happy note we should end the debate this evening. I hope that when we resume we will make further prowess. I beg to suggest that we should reject this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (FARM IMPROVEMENT GRANT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

1.10 a.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I wish to raise the matter of the refusal of a farm improvement grant to Mr. Duncan C. Fairbairn, of Newmains, Drem, East Lothian. I do so partly because it means a loss of £167 to an able and industrious smallholder, money which I believe he rightly should have had, and also because several important issues of principle are involved of the kind which ultimately, I believe, might be appropriate for the Parliamentary Commissioner when that official is appointed. First, I will state the facts.
Mr. Fairbairn is a smallholder chiefly concentrating on dairy farming. He considered that he could increase production, apart from efficiency, if he had a bulk tank for holding milk. This 150 gallon refrigerated tank cost £670. Preliminary approaches were made by him to the Milk Marketing Board, with which he dealt in June this year. The Board was positively enthusiastic about the proposal and urged him to proceed and to start supplying its lorry if possible from 1st August.
Under the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, the County Council had to give approval and he had to arrange for the financing of the project. He also sought a farm improvement grant to help pay for the tank. The total volume of paper work involved was very considerable, and I have the bulk of it here to demonstrate the point. He had to get all these various approvals and request permission from the Scottish Department of Agriculture.
When he approached the Department, this involved one of its officials, who normally dealt with Mr. Fairbairn as a smallholder, visiting him, discussing the project with him and investigating the matter. At this point I am in some difficulty, because the case rests in part on a conflict of evidence or a misunderstanding between the official, the lands officer, and Mr. Fairbairn, and I will therefore have to go into this in some detail. Unfortunately, since this series of events, the lands officer has died, but all the information in connection with the case is in the hands of the Department and is therefore known to my hon. Friend. I must say also that there was at no time in my intention or that of Mr. Fairbairn any element of criticism of the lands officer. He was a well-liked and capable official and, if he erred at all, it was that he was over-zealous.
The lands officer visited Mr. Fairbairn and discussed the project with him and left him the appropriate form to fill in. Here I come to the element of disagreement. According to Mr. Fairbairn—and I quote his version—the lands officer said, "I know the place very well. There will be no hitch here. When the form arrives on my desk I shall sign it. There will be no one down here again, so just go ahead."
There followed the detailed work of approval and of installation of the tank to be carried on. According to Mr. Fairbairn, the only subsequent thing that happened was a telephone call from the Department asking for an estimate for the tank to be sent to the Department, and this was duly done. The tank was then installed. The Board several times contacted him and urged him to be quick about the matter and be in time to start by 1st August. This he managed to do.
Shortly thereafter, two officials called from the Department. I understand that


the lands officer in question was on holiday at the time. They looked at the plans, the estimates, the county council's letter of approval and so on. They then gave their entire approval. They said the scheme was entirely satisfactory from their point of view.
On leaving, however, they asked when he hoped to start using the tank. He expressed surprise and said that he had already begun to do so. I think this shows his good faith about the go-ahead he thought he had been given by the lands officer. These officials expressed complete surprise, their attitude changed and they told him he would get no grant because he had begun operations before their written permission had been received.
Now this is Mr. Fairbairn's account. He is a good farmer and an honourable man—that has never been doubted by anyone concerned. There is positive evidence of his good faith in that he was ready to admit that he had already installed the tank and begun operations.
The Department's account is somewhat different. It insists that no verbal go-ahead was given. It points out that the form in question, which I have here, states quite clearly, as it does, that one must not begin work without the Department's written authority, and if one does so the grant will not be paid. It also says that a letter to this effect was sent to Mr. Fairbairn on 10th June, although I have not been able to find any record of this letter in Mr. Fairbairn's file.
I tried to ascertain, when I started to investigate this matter, which of the two versions was correct and I rang up the lands officer in the Department. I do not want to press this point, but when I rang I encountered very considerable embarrassment and, after a long conversation with the officer, I got the impression that he appreciated that there had been a genuine conflict of opinion on this and that he had left Mr. Fairbairn with the impression that he could go ahead, even if he had not explicitly intended to do so. I do not want to press this. I do not know whether the lands officer, who was a man keen on production, and who had the confidence of these small-holders, co-operating fully with them, may be felt that he could put this form through and may not have

realised that he would be on holiday when it appeared. Perhaps he thought that the installation would take longer. There is no knowing what was in his mind.
What I am pressing is an issue of principle which arises from this. There was clearly a conflict between the two men. A conflict of understanding, of interpretation, and the end result is the citizen is penalised to the extent of £167. It is a matter of principle that if there is a conflict of this kind with such a result, then the citizen's version should be taken and not that of the official.
The second issue of principle arising is that Mr. Fairbairn's only error in the whole procedure was to begin production too quickly. He accepted the Marketing Board's plea to get on with the job and started to use the tank. The Prime Minister has been going around the country urging people to do just this, to cut corners, to give up red tape. I listened to him at the Labour Party conference, expatiating against conservatism, bureaucracy and delay of all kinds, and yet here is the Scottish Department of Agriculture penalising a man for doing what the Prime Minister has urged, producing and getting on with the job.
This is reversing the Prime Minister's message. It seems that the Department wants to delay things and to penalise people. In my discussions with the Under-Secretary of State responsible for this Department, Lord Hughes, the chief objection advanced, which I took very seriously, was that if the rule of prior consent was not adhered to the Government would lose control of schemes and would have to pay for schemes which they would not otherwise have approved. This is simply not the case.
If a project is badly planned, if it was in any way unsatisfactory and did not meet the requirements of the Government, there would be no case for making a grant. In this case the project was entirely approved; it was exactly what the Department was prepared to authorise. I gather that a grant had been provisionally authorised, and was withdrawn simply because production began too early. Under these circumstances, if this rule was waived, no grant would be given to a scheme which would not otherwise have received a grant. No


control would be lost and all that would happen would be that that misunderstanding between a small-holder and the Department would be taken as a reasonable excuse for giving approval to an otherwise exemplary project.
Before I came here I used to teach politics and administration, and I recall that a number of writers discussed the question of the meaning of the word "bureaucracy". It sometimes had a slightly unpleasant meaning if regarded as different from administration pure and simple. In what did this difference lie? I have been interested in this case, because I find that it offers two definitions at this kind of bureaucracy. One is that where a conflict of evidence arises between an official and a citizen on a point in respect of which the citizen can lose or be penalised, whose word is taken? If the word of the official is accepted, that is bureaucracy. The citizen's word should be preferred even when both parties are honourable and above reproach in their general conduct. The second definition is where the policy of the Government is to act is one way—in this case to hasten production—and the action of the Department or of the officials is the reverse of that.
Apart from these administrative issues there are political issues involved. I have always believed that Government Departments can administer in a progressive spirit—and I am sure that many do so—and that the objective of the policy can be adhered to. But if people pervert that policy from its original purpose it is to be condemned. If farmers, knowing that a subsidy is designed to improve output, plant a crop not for the sake of the crop but for the sake of the subsidy, it is a perversion. If, similarly, a Department administering a grant or subsidy is not thinking of the end product —which in this case is producing food—but is concentrating on form-filling and the observance of small clauses, it is a perversion of policy, because it does not concentrate on the right objective.
I have listened to my hon. Friend the Minister of State on many occasions at political meetings saying that he rejects the argument that Government Departments have a dead hand and that State administration is in some sense the enemy of rapid action and progress. I have listened to him expatiating on this many

times. I hope that he proves true to his word on this occasion by changing his attitude. The more I look at the Government's administration of agriculture as an example of Government intervention in a private sector the more unhappy I become, because so much is made of form-filling. The more regulations there are and the more detailed administration and expensive administration is built up the more likely the whole objective of agriculture, which is food production, is likely to be lost sight of.
I hope that my hon. Friend—I appreciate that he had nothing to do with this until a brief was dumped upon him—will not simply read out his brief but will consider the issues involved. I hope that he will consider the citizen's rights in this matter. I hope that he will not go along the line I have described but will reiterate the Government's determination that rapid production is to be praised, and will reverse what I regard as a very unfortunate decision.

1.23 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has said about this case. He has put it quite forcefully and with his customary elegance, although I am afraid that for a professor he has been rather loose in some of the things he has said, especially in attributing to me all sorts of things which I am sure he has not heard me say. Nevertheless, allowing for these flights of fancy, the case was well presented. I am afraid, however, that I must reject it.
As my hon. Friend stated, Mr. Fairbairn is a tenant of one of the Department's smallholdings. He applied on 9th June of this year for a grant in respect of a bulk milk tank. A reply was sent to him the following day, explaining that, before the application could be further considered, it would be necessary for him to provide an estimate of the cost of the tank.
Mr. Fairbairn claims that he never got this letter. I am not questioning that. On 29th June, he telephoned the Department's lands officer, who was responsible for factoring the estate on which his holding was situated and asked what the position was. The lands officer got in


touch with the branch of the Department concerned with farm improvement grants and was told that the estimate was required before consideration of the application could proceed.
There is general agreement up to this point, but there the testimony begins to diverge. The lands officer said—I have no reason to doubt this—that he simply passed on to Mr. Fairbairn the information which he received from the Department. Supporting evidence for this lies in the fact that the necessary estimate was received by the Department from Mr. Fairbairn the following day. Mr. Fairbairn, however, further alleges that he received oral authority from the lands officer to proceed with the work.
I find this hard to credit, as there are standing instructions to all our staff that such authority is not to be given by word of mouth and the lands officer confirmed that he was well aware of these instructions. After the Department received the estimate from Mr. Fairbairn, arrangements were made for an inspection of the farm, which took place on 16th August. The tank was found by then to have been installed and grant was refused on the ground that work had been started without prior written authority.
My hon. Friend has advanced two main arguments why this decision should be reversed first, that, in the conversation with the lands officer of 29th June, there was at least a genuine misunderstanding, as a result of which Mr. Fairbairn thought that it was in order for him to proceed with the work at once. My hon. Friend goes further and says that, in cases like this, we should always give the citizen the benefit of any such doubt. His second argument was that the Department is being excessively bureaucratic and narrow-minded by a rigid insistence on the prior approval rule and are thus frustrating the carrying out of works which are in the national interest.
As regards the alleged misunderstanding in the conversation on 29th June, I cannot help feeling that if Mr. Fairbairn construed the lands officer's remarks as giving him authority to proceed, the wish was, to a certain extent, father to the thought. I am not blaming him for

that; it is understandable. But what we have to remember—this was mentioned only cursorily by my hon. Friend—is that the leaflet and the application form issued to Mr. Fairbairn include, no fewer than seven times, the statement that grant will not be paid on work begun without the Department's prior written authority.
Indeed—my hon. Friend ignored this altogether—the application form which Mr. Fairbairn signed included, in heavy black type less than half an inch above where he had to place his signature, this statement:
I realise that grant will not be paid on any work begun without the Department's prior written authority.
It is hard to believe that a person can sign this form—we have the form, of course, in the office—and not see this heavy black type just above his signature——

Mr. Mackintosh: The whole point is that this was well-known to Mr. Fairbairn, but that, in their discussion, the lands officer told him, "Now carry on. When this form, with your signature and this clause, comes in, it will be put through. You need not wait for this."I am not pressing this, but this is the burden of Mr. Fairbairn's case.

Mr. Willis: I also have examined this matter. I stress the word "writing". In face of these very clear and specific statements, it was reasonable to expect Mr. Fairbairn to have been more cautious about proceeding on any oral statement. I cannot regard his version of the conversation on 29th June as justification for acting in the way he did. I, too, have a version which is rather different from that of my hon. Friend. This is what Mr. Fairbairn says the lands officer said:
My colleague and myself know the place so well that there is no hitch at all You just go ahead and when the form arrives on my desk I will sign it.
These two sentences taken together seem to indicate that the lands officer was referring to the form. These are the words which Mr. Fairbairn says were said to him. They are not quite the same as my hon. Friend quoted, but it is rather difficult to be exact two or three months after they have been said.
In regard to the second argument about the rigidity of the proposals and the


manner in which we deal with them, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I should have thought it obvious that a rule of this kind was a most elementary and necessary safeguard for public funds. My hon. Friend referred to the amount of form filling which a farmer has to do in respect of agricultural grants and subsidies. He seemed to forget the enormous amount of public money involved. Something over £300 million is involved. We would be failing in our duty if this amount of money was given out without proper safeguards. The House would be very critical and so would be the Public Accounts Committee.
I should have thought it was a safeguard—if, for example, the work is to be done by contract it is right and proper to insist wherever possible that there should be competitive tendering and that the Department has an opportunity of scrutinising the tenders beforehand. This rule is common form not only from the farm improvement scheme but for other capital grants schemes for hill farming, land drainage and water supplies and in local government housing and improvement grants. The rule is not only in the public interest, but also in the interests of applicants, as quite often proposals initially submitted will not be satisfactory on technical or economic grounds. If we have an opportunity to look at them before work starts we can suggest modifications to enable them to qualify for grant rather than being confronted by a fait accompli. If we are to have a rule of this kind we must in fairness to all concerned administer it strictly. To do as my hon. Friend suggested and to give retrospective approval to cases when we found that work had been satisfactorily

done would be tantamount to having no approval at all. That could lead to endless argument as to whether in particular cases any deviation from normal standards was or was not sufficiently substantial to warrant withholding grant. It would be utterly impossible for any sensible or prudent administration to proceed on those lines.
This matter has been raised before in debate on 2nd March, 1964. Perhaps I could not do better than repeat what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), then Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland:
I cannot possibly agree with the remarks made to me by my hon. Friend
—The then hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, who is no longer with us——
in a letter on the subject of the farm improvement grant in which he said that the condition laid down about consent being required before work began was merely an administrative convenience. Far from being this, it is, in my view, absolutely fundamental to this most valuable scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 1098.]
I quarrel a good deal with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, and he quarrels with me, but on this occasion I would certainly thoroughly endorse what he said then.
In all the circumstances, although I have a great deal of sympathy with Mr. Fairbairn, I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend, as he has been told already, that I can see no justification for reversing the decision taken in this case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Two o'clock.